These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Five ways to increase the game population
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#41 - 2012-06-07 02:01:36 UTC
You just don't get EvE Online do you? This is a sandbox mmo, not a themepark game.

The Tears Must Flow
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#42 - 2012-06-07 02:26:50 UTC
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
mxzf wrote:
There's a quote that this brought to my mind. "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but loose his soul?"

In Eve terms, "What good is it to gain a ton of subscribers if it means losing the very thing that makes Eve special?"


While I grant you that there is nothing quite like EVE Online, if there are not new subscribers and just an aging population of subscribers then the game will eventually die. By 'smoothing the on-ramp' you wil likely get and MAINTAIN a growth of new EVE peeps that then can grow to the different aspects of the game. Of course probably a decent percentage won't, but all of them will contribute to keeping the game alive and that's where I see the short-sightedness of the 'grief play' style that many EVE-Os apparently cherish.


It's been working just fine for the last 9 years. Subscriber numbers are still growing. EvE Online is special, the last of it's kind, a truly ruthless and competitive old school Sandbox MMO, it will still be here 10 years from now.

People that don't like Sandbox MMO's should go back to the rainbow pony Theme Park MMO's, they'll be safe there.

The Tears Must Flow
Dynast
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#43 - 2012-06-07 02:42:23 UTC
Khoda Khan wrote:
Your proposal doesn't make the game a "little bit" friendlier to PVE'rs. It makes it completely SAFE. You can't get any more friendly than that. You won't get 20k more online from this proposal except for perhaps a very short period, because there's nothing really interesting about EVE other than it's concept of a sandbox in space that will keep them. That is EVE's one real (only) selling point. That a players actions can affect not only their "destiny" but the "destiny" of others. And those actions aren't limited to whether the other pilot wants to participate or not.

This is somewhat tangential to the topic of this thread, but this claim gets made a lot and it is blatantly false. There have been many MMOs on the market which allow similar, or even less restrained "sandbox" play than EVE Online. Shadowbane, Mortal Online, and Darkfall, to name a few. This is not really that uncommon.. it is just uncommon among successful MMOs, most MMOs that offer sandbox style play fail hard.

EVE's real, primary selling point, which allows it to succeed in spite of sandbox play is that it is a sci-fi spaceship game. There are simply a lot of people for whom the idea of flying a spaceship, whether it's being a space trucker or a 'roid cracker or a battleship commander, is amazingly cool. There has not yet been another 1st rate sci-fi spaceship MMO published. There have been some attempts (Jumpgate, that robot EVE clone..) but they didn't really made the cut. So if someone doesn't want to play Elves and Dwarves Online, they just don't have that many options.

Note that something like 85% of all players live (and largely stay in) high security space. Sandbox play probably ain't what's on their mind.
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-06-07 07:16:40 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Andy DelGardo wrote:
Xorv wrote:

You don't seem to understand what Sandbox MMOs are about, nor what it is that attracts players to such games. Given you're motivated, not lazy, educated, and reasonably intelligent what could be the reason for this blatant oversight? Closed Mindedness!


I don't think any has to-do with "closed Mindedness", but simply with experience and different taste. There is no rule that states sandbox games need to have pvp at all, thats just something every developer has to decide for himself.


In regard to the OPer and those like him, yes it is about closed mindedness. Where it isn't closed mindedness it's ignorance. It's fine to have different tastes. The problem is people coming to an activity which given the smallest amount of research would reveal it wasn't for people with their taste, but coming regardless and trying to change the activity to suit themselves. Would you go to a venue for line dancers and demand they change the music from Country to Hip Hop so you can break dance? Do you join a Rugby league then demand the rules be changed so you can play Soccer? If you were a point based karate competitor would it be reasonable for you to demand the UFC make their rules less "hardcore" because your experience and taste is different, but for some reason you still want to participate and compete for the UFC belt?

In regards to Sandbox RPGs; If the sandbox game is massively multiplayer and built around warfare and competition (which almost all MMOs are), then yes it does need to have PvP. A game like EVE must have PvP, because it's defined as such by virtue of being a Sandbox with multiple players, built around competition in a background of conflict.


You almost have a good analogy, but not quite. The problem is that Eve already offers line dancing and hip hop. The problem as I see it is that hip hop is allowed on every dance floor thus interfering with the people that like to line dance. All I'm suggesting is separate rooms for hip hop and line dancing to take place. I feel the dance club would get more patrons if the line dancing fans had a place to call their own while still having plenty of room for the hip hop crowd to enjoy their dance style.

The same idea applies to the rugby/soccer analogy. The rugby league has plenty of fields to accommodate the people that want to play soccer, more people prefer to play soccer, but since the rugby team was there first they feel that the entire area has to be for rugby even if that means a lot of the fields go unused and people leave the league after a few short months.



As for your comment about the sandbox requiring PVP I would say that I completely agree with you. In fact I feel that making my proposed changes would actually increase the amount of mutual PVP. Yes, that's right... MORE PVP. The biggest change would be making gankers take on the same risk that their targets have experienced. You want to gank go to low sec and take your lumps like everyone else. Oh and be ready to fight targets that are actually prepared to fight instead of players just trying to relax and enjoy whatever aspect of Eve that makes them happy.

The sandbox remains. The people in the sandbox can still have plenty of warfare and competition. The only difference is the location that warfare and competition would occur. Oh and the increased number of players.


I disagree with the claim subscriber numbers are still growing and all I can say is that the number of people logged in has been static for two years now. Which means there might be more people subscribing but there are also an equal number of people quitting. Otherwise there would be more people logging on and actually playing the game.
Andy DelGardo
#45 - 2012-06-07 07:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
Xorv wrote:

In regard to the OPer and those like him, yes it is about closed mindedness. Where it isn't closed mindedness it's ignorance. It's fine to have different tastes. The problem is people coming to an activity which given the smallest amount of research would reveal it wasn't for people with their taste, but coming regardless and trying to change the activity to suit themselves. Would you go to a venue for line dancers and demand they change the music from Country to Hip Hop so you can break dance? Do you join a Rugby league then demand the rules be changed so you can play Soccer? If you were a point based karate competitor would it be reasonable for you to demand the UFC make their rules less "hardcore" because your experience and taste is different, but for some reason you still want to participate and compete for the UFC belt?

In regards to Sandbox RPGs; If the sandbox game is massively multiplayer and built around warfare and competition (which almost all MMOs are), then yes it does need to have PvP. A game like EVE must have PvP, because it's defined as such by virtue of being a Sandbox with multiple players, built around competition in a background of conflict.


Wow, so many problems here. First of your main argument is "we don't get eve" and "we are not allowed to change it". Than u try to undermine this reasoning with real world games, first of the RW games where not created on paper and worked the way they did from day one on. Than like i noted u link your "personal" taste and experience, to the idea that eve as sandbox game absolutely needs to have pvp in its current form. Like the OP stated, most of eve residents don't go to null/low sec at all and also a big chunk only participate in theme-park style pvp, hence thats the main reason why RvB is so huge. Hence the only reason we even discuss this matter at all, is that CCP had the technical knowhow to make eve a coherent shard, otherwise we would have several server worlds and u can bet that we than also would have a split between a PvP only and PvE server or some more mixed forms. Also as far as your RW examples go, many sports where taken from some other forms and than also molded to what they are today. Like i noted from my experience and taste PvP is never the absolute game defining mechanic, so ofc u "could" change the way pvp works in eve, but if u did read my posts i also already explained why this would be a bad idea.

So we can go on and basically argue what will theoretically happen if CCP would open a PvE only server or if they make PvE 100% safe? The only points we end up making, is that for u eve without its current pvp is not eve anymore and others would feel differently. To give u the same crazy examples u gave us, what the OP want is simply removing the death penalty from roman gladiator style games, since he don't see why we cant have fun games in a area without killing people. (NOTE: ofc this is a crazy example, so are yours) A other example i could state is racing sports: Oh no they want to dictate what tire manufacture we use, just so we appeal more to the audience. Bah now they even have the guts to put some gimmicky electro boost thingy in our clean and competitive racing sport, just to entertain the audiences. Screw them all, where are the times men & car alone dictates the outcome of a race and manufactures could truly innovate on mechanics and car. Basically they drastically changed F1, things like 8 wheel cars or Turbo-Monsters will never happen again and ofc its the right of people to feel that those changes killed the "true" F1, while other feel differently, thats just personal taste if u prefer to think that manufacturer "car building pvp" is part of the F1 sport or not. A friend of mine just told me that the most defining factor in F1 atm are the tire "games", which i personally find ridiculous and thats the reason i don't watch F1 anymore. So yes they "broke" F1 for me a long time ago and the OP would "break" Eve for u, but Eve like F1 would go on, just without us.

bye Andy
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-06-07 08:31:56 UTC
Andy DelGardo wrote:
Xorv wrote:

In regard to the OPer and those like him, yes it is about closed mindedness. Where it isn't closed mindedness it's ignorance. It's fine to have different tastes. The problem is people coming to an activity which given the smallest amount of research would reveal it wasn't for people with their taste, but coming regardless and trying to change the activity to suit themselves. Would you go to a venue for line dancers and demand they change the music from Country to Hip Hop so you can break dance? Do you join a Rugby league then demand the rules be changed so you can play Soccer? If you were a point based karate competitor would it be reasonable for you to demand the UFC make their rules less "hardcore" because your experience and taste is different, but for some reason you still want to participate and compete for the UFC belt?

In regards to Sandbox RPGs; If the sandbox game is massively multiplayer and built around warfare and competition (which almost all MMOs are), then yes it does need to have PvP. A game like EVE must have PvP, because it's defined as such by virtue of being a Sandbox with multiple players, built around competition in a background of conflict.


Wow, so many problems here. First of your main argument is "we don't get eve" and "we are not allowed to change it". Than u try to undermine this reasoning with real world games, first of the RW games where not created on paper and worked the way they did from day one on. Than like i noted u link your "personal" taste and experience, to the idea that eve as sandbox game absolutely needs to have pvp in its current form. Like the OP stated, most of eve residents don't go to null/low sec at all and also a big chunk only participate in theme-park style pvp, hence thats the main reason why RvB is so huge. Hence the only reason we even discuss this matter at all, is that CCP had the technical knowhow to make eve a coherent shard, otherwise we would have several server worlds and u can bet that we than also would have a split between a PvP only and PvE server or some more mixed forms. Also as far as your RW examples go, many sports where taken from some other forms and than also molded to what they are today. Like i noted from my experience and taste PvP is never the absolute game defining mechanic, so ofc u "could" change the way pvp works in eve, but if u did read my posts i also already explained why this would be a bad idea.

So we can go on and basically argue what will theoretically happen if CCP would open a PvE only server or if they make PvE 100% safe? The only points we end up making, is that for u eve without its current pvp is not eve anymore and others would feel differently. To give u the same crazy examples u gave us, what the OP want is simply removing the death penalty from roman gladiator style games, since he don't see why we cant have fun games in a area without killing people. (NOTE: ofc this is a crazy example, so are yours) A other example i could state is racing sports: Oh no they want to dictate what tire manufacture we use, just so we appeal more to the audience. Bah now they even have the guts to put some gimmicky electro boost thingy in our clean and competitive racing sport, just to entertain the audiences. Screw them all, where are the times men & car alone dictates the outcome of a race and manufactures could truly innovate on mechanics and car. Basically they drastically changed F1, things like 8 wheel cars or Turbo-Monsters will never happen again and ofc its the right of people to feel that those changes killed the "true" F1, while other feel differently, thats just personal taste if u prefer to think that manufacturer "car building pvp" is part of the F1 sport or not. A friend of mine just told me that the most defining factor in F1 atm are the tire "games", which i personally find ridiculous and thats the reason i don't watch F1 anymore. So yes they "broke" F1 for me a long time ago and the OP would "break" Eve for u, but Eve like F1 would go on, just without us.

bye Andy



What did the English language do to you to deserve this?
Andy DelGardo
#47 - 2012-06-07 08:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
Danika Princip wrote:

What did the English language do to you to deserve this?


Hehe its quite early here and as u may have guessed its not my first language. So whats you point? I need to improve my english? Hell yes :p
The main problem is that no one "corrects" my english in posts, so i don't improve my SPO and mainly just notice if the word correction pops in while writing.

PS: Stupid SPO still hurts my brain frequently.
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-06-07 08:39:11 UTC
If you want to increase the population of EVE, your first step would be focusing on improving the new player experience. The game itself is largely fine with only some wrinkles here and there. Introducing that game to new players is the problem. EVE attracts new blood just fine. Retaining it past the tutorials is another matter. Many of the players do not help in that regard if not actively seem to go out of their way to drive people out.

EVE should introduce itself and explain the lay of the land to a new player before throwing them to the wolves. Instead, new players knock on the door only to have a hood thrown over their head from behind before they're dragged into an alley, punched in the groin and have both their wallet and their pants stolen. Leaving them broke, confused and weeping into an open sewer drain.

But whenever anyone suggets a way to improve it they get drowned out by people screaming "NO! EVE IS ABOUT COCKPUNCHING! If you take away the cockpunching its not EVE anymore!".

You can't just punch everyone in the **** and expect your supply of cockpunchees to last forever.









Velicitia
XS Tech
#49 - 2012-06-07 08:57:00 UTC
Dynast wrote:
Khoda Khan wrote:
Your proposal doesn't make the game a "little bit" friendlier to PVE'rs. It makes it completely SAFE. You can't get any more friendly than that. You won't get 20k more online from this proposal except for perhaps a very short period, because there's nothing really interesting about EVE other than it's concept of a sandbox in space that will keep them. That is EVE's one real (only) selling point. That a players actions can affect not only their "destiny" but the "destiny" of others. And those actions aren't limited to whether the other pilot wants to participate or not.

This is somewhat tangential to the topic of this thread, but this claim gets made a lot and it is blatantly false. There have been many MMOs on the market which allow similar, or even less restrained "sandbox" play than EVE Online. Shadowbane, Mortal Online, and Darkfall, to name a few. This is not really that uncommon.. it is just uncommon among successful MMOs, most MMOs that offer sandbox style play fail hard.

EVE's real, primary selling point, which allows it to succeed in spite of sandbox play is that it is a sci-fi spaceship game. There are simply a lot of people for whom the idea of flying a spaceship, whether it's being a space trucker or a 'roid cracker or a battleship commander, is amazingly cool. There has not yet been another 1st rate sci-fi spaceship MMO published. There have been some attempts (Jumpgate, that robot EVE clone..) but they didn't really made the cut. So if someone doesn't want to play Elves and Dwarves Online, they just don't have that many options.

Note that something like 85% of all players live (and largely stay in) high security space. Sandbox play probably ain't what's on their mind.


note that you're wrong on the claim that 85% of players live primarily in hisec.
Far as I've ever seen the figure, it's always specified characters with no indication as to how many are alts (same account, or otherwise).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Velicitia
XS Tech
#50 - 2012-06-07 09:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Andy DelGardo wrote:

So we can go on and basically argue what will theoretically happen if CCP would open a PvE only server or if they make PvE 100% safe?
bye Andy


Singularity (i.e. the test server) has this already.

If they broke TQ into PVP and PVE shards, it would kill off the "big" selling point of "One world, where what you do can matter".

That said, if they did this, the PvE server would be complete rubbish ... and I would happily be making spacebux faster than the goons (currently) are with their Tech moons on the PvP server. I'm sure you can figure out why (hint: it has to do with something that doesn't happen to "good" mission runners).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Andy DelGardo
#51 - 2012-06-07 09:22:04 UTC
Velicitia wrote:

Singularity (i.e. the test server) has this already.


Testserver != retail, u cant compare testserver interest to what will happen if they go retail, heck u cant even get on test without reading and installing stuff.

Velicitia wrote:

If they broke TQ into PVP and PVE shards, it would kill off the "big" selling point of "One world, where what you do can matter".


Yes one of the selling points, probably in the top 10, but i don't see it as the main one, also it isn't tied to the "what i do matters", it simply matters to more players thats all.

I have a question, lets assume there would be 2 servers one PvE and one PvP. This would also mean that on the PvP server there is basically no hi-sec. Would u pvp guys prefer hi-sec rules even on a pvp server or would u want it to be full pvp, if u have the choice? So how dependent are u on all this hi sec player killing?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#52 - 2012-06-07 09:45:00 UTC
Andy DelGardo wrote:

I have a question, lets assume there would be 2 servers one PvE and one PvP. This would also mean that on the PvP server there is basically no hi-sec. Would u pvp guys prefer hi-sec rules even on a pvp server or would u want it to be full pvp, if u have the choice? So how dependent are u on all this hi sec player killing?



1. I mine and do industrial things mainly. I can apply concentrated blaster fire to someone's hull ... though I'm generally terrible at direct combat.
2. I've lived in hisec for the last ~18 months (though moving into low). Prior to this tenure in hisec, I've dabbled in low/null in the past as well.

Assuming a split world, I would imagine that a "PvP server" would operate exactly like TQ does today ... but maybe an "older" set of the rules (e.g. boomerang or any of the other "changed by mechanics" gank styles are still OK). I'm not opposed to "no hisec at all" ... but then again, I'm comfortable with "work with others" gameplay...

I'm "dependant" on ship destruction (in high, low, null, or w-space) in the same way any other industrialist is --> I need *someone* to buy my stuff, else there's no point to making it. Thing is though ... I don't need a fuckton of ISK like some people seem to feel... the "endgame" for me would be a comfortable amount of ISK, and making ships my corpies need at whatever price I feel is adequate -- even if it's "OK, you sat in the belt for a few hours with me last week, here's your 'Geddon".

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#53 - 2012-06-07 10:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
Velicitia wrote:
Andy DelGardo wrote:

I have a question, lets assume there would be 2 servers one PvE and one PvP. This would also mean that on the PvP server there is basically no hi-sec. Would u pvp guys prefer hi-sec rules even on a pvp server or would u want it to be full pvp, if u have the choice? So how dependent are u on all this hi sec player killing?



1. I mine and do industrial things mainly. I can apply concentrated blaster fire to someone's hull ... though I'm generally terrible at direct combat.
2. I've lived in hisec for the last ~18 months (though moving into low). Prior to this tenure in hisec, I've dabbled in low/null in the past as well.

Assuming a split world, I would imagine that a "PvP server" would operate exactly like TQ does today ... but maybe an "older" set of the rules (e.g. boomerang or any of the other "changed by mechanics" gank styles are still OK). I'm not opposed to "no hisec at all" ... but then again, I'm comfortable with "work with others" gameplay...

I'm "dependant" on ship destruction (in high, low, null, or w-space) in the same way any other industrialist is --> I need *someone* to buy my stuff, else there's no point to making it. Thing is though ... I don't need a fuckton of ISK like some people seem to feel... the "endgame" for me would be a comfortable amount of ISK, and making ships my corpies need at whatever price I feel is adequate -- even if it's "OK, you sat in the belt for a few hours with me last week, here's your 'Geddon".

One interesting post I saw recently was detailing what has happened on the chinese server, serenity.

Quoted from the post to save myself from reiterating the same points:

Khoda Khan wrote:
I spent about a year playing on Serenity, the Chinese EVE server. While it was fun, with a lot more opportunity for non-blobby solo and small gang pvp, it was fairly uninspiring otherwise. The markets suck terribly on Serenity. This is partially because of the smaller number of aggregate players, but it's also due to the fact that (in my experience) much of the gameplay on Serenity, even in lowsec, is far more PVE friendly. There are wars, of course, and pvp, but it never seemed like it was considered an important staple of Chinese play.

For the most part even the nullsec alliances minded thier own business, content with accumalating wealth, butwithout having anything to spend it on. The result? It wasn't hard to find multi billion ISK shinies roaming around nullsec solo, without much of a care in the world. They tended to make for easy targets. Without the constant cycle of creation and destruction, the environment was pretty uninspiring. It was fun, because how ften do you get to wreck fourteen billion worth of Mackinaws in a Vaga in matter of minutes on Tranquility, but a few minutes of fun doesn't make a game. It has to be interesting overall.

On Serenity, they have the same choices we do... To PVE or PVP. My experiences there lead me to believe that most preferred PVE. The result was a picture of Tranquility's future if CCP were to ever limit player choices in any region of space. The difference between people choosing to PVE in an environment where cultural beliefs tend towrds pacifism/PVe oriented gameplay and an environment where that form of gameplay is enforced, is negligible.

But enough on this topic. I encourage you to check out Serenity yourself if you want a sneak peek of a mostly pacifist EVE. Who knows, you may actually find it fits better for you.


This would probably be exactly what would happen if the Eve server were split into PvE and PvP, only the change would be more extreme. A smaller number of players, no market demand and nothing but the slow accumulation of wealth.

The PvP server would probably still function, but high sec and newbie systems would likely be kept in anyway for newbies so in reality not a lot would change. High sec could definitely do with being toned down a bit though.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Velicitia
XS Tech
#54 - 2012-06-07 10:48:00 UTC
o_O How'd I miss that post?! Brilliant points made by Khoda...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Andy DelGardo
#55 - 2012-06-07 10:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
Indeed interesting, so basically we already have a "chinese" PvE and a western PvP server than. Does this also mean we westerners are wild, killing savages? Sad
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#56 - 2012-06-07 10:52:31 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
o_O How'd I miss that post?! Brilliant points made by Khoda...

Hehe, yeah, I bookmarked it so I could refer to it in the future Lol

Quite a useful post for illustrating how PvP (or a lack thereof) impacts the market and industry.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Velicitia
XS Tech
#57 - 2012-06-07 10:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Andy DelGardo wrote:
Indeed interesting, so basically we already have a "chinese" PvE and a western PvP server than. Does this also mean we westerners are wild, killing savages? Sad



I think it means more "we're not biological bots" ... but then again...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Andy DelGardo
#58 - 2012-06-07 10:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
Simi Kusoni wrote:

Quite a useful post for illustrating how PvP (or a lack thereof) impacts the market and industry.


The more interesting question would be, what would happen if u open up the chinese server to more/all westerners? Having clueless shiny kills, probably seems interesting to the pvp folks. Would the chinese pve population complain or leave the game or simply continue and adapt?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#59 - 2012-06-07 11:00:01 UTC
Andy DelGardo wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

Quite a useful post for illustrating how PvP (or a lack thereof) impacts the market and industry.


The more interesting question would be, what would happen if u open up the chinese server to us westerners? Having clueless shiny kills, probably seems interesting to the pvp folks. Would the chinese pve population complain or leave the game or simply continue and adapt?



See: The Great Firewall of China

That's the only reason there are "two" servers for EvE. If the Chinese Gov't wasn't so against Western Culture (or whatever reason they give for said split), the Chinese players would be on TQ with the rest of us. PROBABLY stuck in hisec or something, because, well the TQ playerbase likes to explode pixels.

I'm not saying a Chinese alliance *couldn't* take sov somewhere ... but using the info provided, it seems they'd be hard pressed to hold space for an appreciable length of time...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Andy DelGardo
#60 - 2012-06-07 11:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
Velicitia wrote:

I'm not saying a Chinese alliance *couldn't* take sov somewhere ... but using the info provided, it seems they'd be hard pressed to hold space for an appreciable length of time...


mhh maybe they simply zerg us? Having 500k chinese players vs 100k westerns :) I can foresee chinese "super-bloops".

PS: Btw can CCP actually maintain the single shard policy if much more players would join? I mean can they simply upgrade there servers, since what happens if 5k+ players want to jump into Jita or fleets of 500+ want to fight? Would this not mean those zones would have constantly time dilation at 50%+ activated, which would suck?