These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

April survey results
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#161 - 2012-06-08 13:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
I will never understand some people's need to change things.

EVE is a cold, harsh, unforgiving multi-player conflict driven pvp sandbox (or at least that was the intent......). And yet all you see in GD are people trying to soften it to suit their needs. Why? (Rhetoricial question I know, it's pretty much human nature to try to change things to suit you rather than adapt yourself to suit it).

Why not play Star Trek Online which already does what the "soft" crowd likes? If I didn't like EVE's theme but liked space ships, I'd leave and do something els,e eve isn't the only space ship game in existance.

When I read things like Mittani's last editorial talking about the rot setting in because of an influx of carebearish types, I tended to want to put on my tinfoil hat. But I think he has a point, for some reason people (especially new people) seem to be hell bent on destoying that which makes EVE unique, encouraging CCP to turn it into some generic theme park in space BS. Hell, it's why some CCP folks had to make a "HTFU" video, because people really are that (insert colloqiual name for female body parts)-ified that too much harshness in a game is somehow bad....
Lexmana
#162 - 2012-06-08 13:27:53 UTC
So you guys actually believe in a survey with ≈ 0.7% response rate? For some reason I wouldn't be surprised if the same people is arguing that the CSM is not representative of the playerbase.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#163 - 2012-06-08 13:30:30 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
So you guys actually believe in a survey with ≈ 0.7% response rate?
Where did you get that number from?

A survey with 2,400 gives a reasonably small margin of error and the only reason not to believe it would be if there was some significant selection bias. So: was there?
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#164 - 2012-06-08 13:35:39 UTC
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Trammel killed UO sandbox. You too stupid to understand that.

The Tears Must Flow
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#165 - 2012-06-08 13:35:42 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
So you guys actually believe in a survey with ≈ 0.7% response rate? For some reason I wouldn't be surprised if the same people is arguing that the CSM is not representative of the playerbase.


Do you honestly believe EVE has 400k unique players? As in, 400,000 human individuals?

What I believe is that there's approximately 400k subs. Out of those, 60% are PLEXed alt accounts, which is supported by both personal observations and polls I saw over the years. The most recent one I saw, I believe last September, showed that over 60% of people had 2 or more accounts, many 3 or more, quite a few as many as 6.

So, realistically, it's entirely possible the game has 150-200k players in it, or less. In which case the poll is 1.4-2%, which is fairly decent.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#166 - 2012-06-08 13:39:43 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Yep, UO was so awesome that it was dying. So they introduced the "carebear" Trammel, and soon after it was introduced, the game was getting record subscription numbers in excess of 250k back in 2003.

Of course in 2004 the "godawful carebear piece-o-crap WoW" came out and blew them all out of the water, but hey, that's nothing. Who wants to run a successful business earning hundreds of millions a year for 8 years running in this economy anyhow? Roll

So yeah, keep thinking that PvPers and gankers are the future. Despite all available evidence showing otherwise.

EDIT: I would also love to see a similar survey regarding the new UI. Just to see how many people wanted it, how many prefer it to the old UI, etc., etc. I have a gut feeling the reaction to it is overwhelmingly negative,


Ultima Online was the first sandbox. Housing, PKs, full loot, all that good ****. The economy was extremely well balanced, pvp was frenetic, twitchy and had an extremely high skill cap. You could steal from people, poison them, etc.

Then Trammel came. It split the world in to two halves. One half was the way it was before, the other half was pvp-free. If you stayed in the old world, you got double the resources you did in the new one, but at the same usual risk. In the new world, there was quite literally zero risk, so the economy got completely ****** and inflated. Everyone went mob-killing (ratting) in the best gear (deadspace) instead of basic blacksmithed (t2) gear, no one cared about ore/minerals anymore, etc, etc.

It was the deathknell for UO. Subscriptions dropped off massively and it never recovered. The game is god awful now, but a carebears absolutely sweetest heaven, full of opportunities for massive gold-accumulation and nothing to spend it on.

The Tears Must Flow
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#167 - 2012-06-08 13:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jame Jarl Retief
Vaju Enki wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Trammel killed UO sandbox. You too stupid uo understand that.


I think you're not remembering things right.

UO released in late '97, it did OK. Great even, for its time. Near 100k subs, and almost zero competition. But as soon as the novelty wore off, and competition showed up (EverQuest in early '99, Acheron's Call in late '99, etc.) and ganking and griefing became rampant the game was going downhill.

To save it, in early 2000 Trammel was added in an expansion. Population went UP, not down. And by 2003 the game reached its peak subs - 250k subscribers. Which, for that time, was a very respectable number.

Now, concentrate and follow these simple facts:
Before Trammel - 100k subs and going down.
After Trammel - 250k subs and going UP.

And a year after UO reached its peak, WoW came out. Which IS Trammel, there was never a Felucca there. Result? 3 mil subs within months. Six in a year. Twelve in two years. Ten after 8 years and holding stable.

Soooo, your conclusion from that is Trammel killed UO? Roll

Quote:
It was the deathknell for UO. Subscriptions dropped off massively and it never recovered. The game is god awful now, but a carebears absolutely sweetest heaven, full of opportunities for massive gold-accumulation and nothing to spend it on.[/i]


Two words for you mate: BULL --- DUNG.

UO reached its max subs EVER several years after Trammel was introduced and the word spread that the game was playable again without being griefed 24/7. This is not an opinion. Look what I said above. Pre-Trammel -> 100k subs. Post-Tramme -> 250k subs. Deathknell? Please.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#168 - 2012-06-08 13:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Trammel killed UO sandbox. You too stupid uo understand that.


I think you're not remembering things right.

UO released in late '97, it did OK. Great even, for its time. Near 100k subs, and almost zero competition. But as soon as the novelty wore off, and competition showed up (EverQuest in early '99, Acheron's Call in late '99, etc.) and ganking and griefing became rampant the game was going downhill.

To save it, in early 2000 Trammel was added in an expansion. Population went UP, not down. And by 2003 the game reached its peak subs - 250k subscribers. Which, for that time, was a very respectable number.

Now, concentrate and follow these simple facts:
Before Trammel - 100k subs and going down.
After Trammel - 250k subs and going UP.

And a year after UO reached its peak, WoW came out. Which IS Trammel, there was never a Felucca there. Result? 3 mil subs within months. Six in a year. Twelve in two years. Ten after 8 years and holding stable.

Soooo, your conclusion from that is Trammel killed UO? Roll


Yes, it was Trammel that killed Ultima Online, the carebear patch, the sandbox armageddon. The game could have over 1 billions subs, it doesn't matter anymore because it was not Ultima Online sandbox, it was just another carebear theme park game.

Question for you, if you want to play theme park mmo's, why don't you go play them and leave game like EvE Online?

The Tears Must Flow
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#169 - 2012-06-08 13:50:11 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Yep, UO was so awesome that it was dying. So they introduced the "carebear" Trammel, and soon after it was introduced, the game was getting record subscription numbers in excess of 250k back in 2003.

Of course in 2004 the "godawful carebear piece-o-crap WoW" came out and blew them all out of the water, but hey, that's nothing. Who wants to run a successful business earning hundreds of millions a year for 8 years running in this economy anyhow? Roll

So yeah, keep thinking that PvPers and gankers are the future. Despite all available evidence showing otherwise.

EDIT: I would also love to see a similar survey regarding the new UI. Just to see how many people wanted it, how many prefer it to the old UI, etc., etc. I have a gut feeling the reaction to it is overwhelmingly negative,


Ultima Online was the first sandbox. Housing, PKs, full loot, all that good ****. The economy was extremely well balanced, pvp was frenetic, twitchy and had an extremely high skill cap. You could steal from people, poison them, etc.

Then Trammel came. It split the world in to two halves. One half was the way it was before, the other half was pvp-free. If you stayed in the old world, you got double the resources you did in the new one, but at the same usual risk. In the new world, there was quite literally zero risk, so the economy got completely ****** and inflated. Everyone went mob-killing (ratting) in the best gear (deadspace) instead of basic blacksmithed (t2) gear, no one cared about ore/minerals anymore, etc, etc.

It was the deathknell for UO. Subscriptions dropped off massively and it never recovered. The game is god awful now, but a carebears absolutely sweetest heaven, full of opportunities for massive gold-accumulation and nothing to spend it on.


EVE is a game where your effort and dedication of mining for 50 hours and buy yourself a Hulk is rewarded by someone creating a trial acocunt, train it offline for three days and blow the **** out of you in 30 seconds.

That's the very reason why people plays hardcore games.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#170 - 2012-06-08 13:51:05 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Yep, UO was so awesome that it was dying. So they introduced the "carebear" Trammel, and soon after it was introduced, the game was getting record subscription numbers in excess of 250k back in 2003.

Of course in 2004 the "godawful carebear piece-o-crap WoW" came out and blew them all out of the water, but hey, that's nothing. Who wants to run a successful business earning hundreds of millions a year for 8 years running in this economy anyhow? Roll

So yeah, keep thinking that PvPers and gankers are the future. Despite all available evidence showing otherwise.

EDIT: I would also love to see a similar survey regarding the new UI. Just to see how many people wanted it, how many prefer it to the old UI, etc., etc. I have a gut feeling the reaction to it is overwhelmingly negative,


Ultima Online was the first sandbox. Housing, PKs, full loot, all that good ****. The economy was extremely well balanced, pvp was frenetic, twitchy and had an extremely high skill cap. You could steal from people, poison them, etc.

Then Trammel came. It split the world in to two halves. One half was the way it was before, the other half was pvp-free. If you stayed in the old world, you got double the resources you did in the new one, but at the same usual risk. In the new world, there was quite literally zero risk, so the economy got completely ****** and inflated. Everyone went mob-killing (ratting) in the best gear (deadspace) instead of basic blacksmithed (t2) gear, no one cared about ore/minerals anymore, etc, etc.

It was the deathknell for UO. Subscriptions dropped off massively and it never recovered. The game is god awful now, but a carebears absolutely sweetest heaven, full of opportunities for massive gold-accumulation and nothing to spend it on.


EVE is a game where your effort and dedication of mining for 50 hours and buy yourself a Hulk is rewarded by someone creating a trial acocunt, train it offline for three days and blow the **** out of you in 30 seconds.

That's the very reason why people plays hardcore games.


Damage Control I

The Tears Must Flow
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#171 - 2012-06-08 13:53:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ana Vyr
Christopher Dulson wrote:
Its interesting that most people tend to play mainly alone.

Im suppose that this is highsec mission runners.


Many folks don't have time to play in a corp without annoying the other corpies with their unpredictable playtimes, and short play sessions. Sometimes I log on for 15 minutes. Ideally, folks in a corp want to work together on things. I won't burden other people with my casualness when they clearly want to group up and get stuff done, which is why they joined a corp in the first place. That's why I play alone, and I bet there's lots of people in this situation.

The other reason is that I just plain don't trust anyone in EvE.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#172 - 2012-06-08 13:57:01 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Yes, it was Trammel that killed Ultima Online, the carebear patch, the sandbox armageddon. The game could have over 1 billions subs, it doesn't matter anymoe because it was not Ultima Online sandbox, it was just another carebear theme park game.

Question for you, if you want to play theme park mmo's, why don't you go play them and leave game like EvE Online?


See, I could totally agree with you on the "we'll never know, because Trammel killed it" argument, if they released Trammel very soon after UO's release. The thing is, what PROMPTED the creation of Trammel was massive subscription losses in the 2 years preceding the Trammel expansion due to massive griefing.

It wasn't a "sandbox armageddon", it was a "ganking/griefing" armageddon. The only things Trammel changed was non-consensual PvP. Every other sandbox element present in original UO was still present in Trammel. Just some griefing elements were curtailed a bit.

As it was, the game was given 2 years. It wasn't going anywhere. With competition biting at its heels, they had to do something or die. They did Trammel. And it worked! The game's population more than doubled compared to the previous peak subscription numbers.

So, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. They killed griefing. People came flooding in. Other games (like EverQuest) came out with little griefing to begin with, and did even better than UO. And then WoW came out with no griefing at all (well, some, if you consider corpse-camping and NPC/flightmaster/auctioneer killing griefing), and blew them all away. I'm not seeing any indication that people actually LIKE griefing or are attracted to it in any way, statistically speaking.

And dude, don't get me wrong. I LOVE sandbox. I just don't equate sandbox to griefing, non-consensual PvP and general douchebaggery. They're not in any way linked or required for sandbox to exist. Every sandbox is limited in some way, and limits on just how much freedom a player has in certain areas is always controlled - even in EVE (see Concord). Otherwise it's just anarchy.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#173 - 2012-06-08 13:59:32 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
If they added more to avatar game play they'd get more people playing. This walking in closest is not helping much. Add more WiS to the game and they'd be pushing 100k plus subs easily - if not more.


Agreed. They should push WiS to make sure they have 100k active subs.

[A certain improvement over the 400k they have now]

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#174 - 2012-06-08 14:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Talon SilverHawk
Vaju Enki wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Disdaine wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:

Remember the epic mmo Ultima Online? They ruin it, all that was left was a hollow game, with fever and bleeding diathesis...


Remember it quite well.

They had to split the world into Trammel and Felucca because the "hardcore pvpers" were running around in groups ganking every new player until subs suffered.


Trammel killed UO sandbox. You too stupid uo understand that.


I think you're not remembering things right.

UO released in late '97, it did OK. Great even, for its time. Near 100k subs, and almost zero competition. But as soon as the novelty wore off, and competition showed up (EverQuest in early '99, Acheron's Call in late '99, etc.) and ganking and griefing became rampant the game was going downhill.

To save it, in early 2000 Trammel was added in an expansion. Population went UP, not down. And by 2003 the game reached its peak subs - 250k subscribers. Which, for that time, was a very respectable number.

Now, concentrate and follow these simple facts:
Before Trammel - 100k subs and going down.
After Trammel - 250k subs and going UP.

And a year after UO reached its peak, WoW came out. Which IS Trammel, there was never a Felucca there. Result? 3 mil subs within months. Six in a year. Twelve in two years. Ten after 8 years and holding stable.

Soooo, your conclusion from that is Trammel killed UO? Roll


Yes, it was Trammel that killed Ultima Online, the carebear patch, the sandbox armageddon. The game could have over 1 billions subs, it doesn't matter anymore because it was not Ultima Online sandbox, it was just another carebear theme park game.

Question for you, if you want to play theme park mmo's, why don't you go play them and leave game like EvE Online?


You know its ppl like you that kill games by keeping asking ppl to leave who don't agree with your one sided and biased view of the world, there is room enough for everyone in Eve.

Tal
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
#175 - 2012-06-08 14:13:41 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:

It wasn't a "sandbox armageddon", it was a "ganking/griefing" armageddon. The only things Trammel changed was non-consensual PvP. Every other sandbox element present in original UO was still present in Trammel. Just some griefing elements were curtailed a bit.

As it was, the game was given 2 years. It wasn't going anywhere. With competition biting at its heels, they had to do something or die. They did Trammel. And it worked! The game's population more than doubled compared to the previous peak subscription numbers.

And some of the players who liked the 'sandbox armageddon' left and made a game called Eve.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#176 - 2012-06-08 14:24:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
If they added more to avatar game play they'd get more people playing. This walking in closest is not helping much. Add more WiS to the game and they'd be pushing 100k plus subs easily - if not more.


Agreed. They should push WiS to make sure they have 100k active subs.

[A certain improvement over the 400k they have now]


The sad thing is, and this is just one total schmuck's opinion (mine) here, is that WiS could do for EVE more than any other change, pretty much ever. BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, it has to be properly done.

Imagine logging into EVE, and instead of staring at your ship, ending up in a huge vibrant gorgeous space station full of people, surrounded by muted conversations, the announcements, the holo-advertisements floating above. Totally different feel, right? Imagine actually walking up to an NPC and having a conversation with him, rather than just clicking his portrait and hitting accept. Totally different experience. And this wouldn't mean you HAVE to do it this way, you would still be able to do it from your pod remotely, if you didn't want to, but the option would be there.

Now, add meaningful gameplay. Like flying into a wormhole, finding a space hulk, and going into it wearing a suit of armor, armed with a heavy bolter a'la Warhammer 40k? And finding artefacts (or rogue drone AI) inside. Again, totally different to just clicking the item in space and clicking a ship's module and waiting for it to cycle through and say "success" or "nothing was salvaged".

IF, and like the BIG BUT this is a BIG IF, they were able to actually pull this off, without letting EVE itself atrophy and die in the 2-3 decades it will take CCP with their glacial pace to actually do this, they would have such a unique game that I honestly can't see it dying any time soon, it would only grow provided it is maintained properly.

But quite frankly I just don't see it happening. It took years to get Incarna to a state where it's just a room with one person in it. Something other MMOs wouldn't even consider a gameplay demo, never mind a full fledged expansion. But I honestly believe such a change could easily double the amount of players EVE has, maybe even triple or quadruple it. Simple fact is, a lot of people like Sci-Fi. But not a lot of people find flying a ship in a circle (without manual control, mind!) all that entertaining. Avatar-based gameplay however is tried, tested and true successful mechanic. And EVE doesn't have it. Except for the closet.
Lexmana
#177 - 2012-06-08 14:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Tippia wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
So you guys actually believe in a survey with ≈ 0.7% response rate?
Where did you get that number from?

A survey with 2,400 gives a reasonably small margin of error and the only reason not to believe it would be if there was some significant selection bias. So: was there?


Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
So, realistically, it's entirely possible the game has 150-200k players in it, or less. In which case the poll is 1.4-2%, which is fairly decent.


Big numbers are not always accurate as we learned from the Truman vs Dewey campaign in 1948. When ≈98% decide to not answer a survey, the burden of proof lies with those who claim it to be representative (i.e. no sampling bias). I know that you would have a hard time claiming that in a scientific journal with less than 60-70% response rate.

So, how can you claim it to be representative?
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#178 - 2012-06-08 14:56:37 UTC
Sounds a lot like the CSM Election process, does it not ?
Only a small number of voters when compared to the actual number of active Eve players.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Xavier Holtzman
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#179 - 2012-06-08 14:58:31 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The latest eve newsletter has a link to the April survey results, also given here

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour?utm_source=newsletter77&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter77

Why do people start playing eve? The winners were a complex Sci Fi game with space exploration, with around 70%+ picking those.

And down at 25%? PvP.

It would appear that the survey takers were not drawn to eve by "the hard core PvP" but because its a Sci Fi game.

If CCP wants to attract more players, what should they concentrate on......


I would like to know two things:

1) How many active subscriptions were there at the time the survey was taken?

2) How many people (who had active subscriptions) took the survey?

I do not like the men on this spaceship. They are uncouth and fail to appreciate my better qualities. I have something of value to contribute to this mission if only they would realize it. - Bill Frug
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#180 - 2012-06-08 15:01:41 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
If they added more to avatar game play they'd get more people playing. This walking in closest is not helping much. Add more WiS to the game and they'd be pushing 100k plus subs easily - if not more.


Agreed. They should push WiS to make sure they have 100k active subs.

[A certain improvement over the 400k they have now]


The sad thing is, and this is just one total *******'s opinion (mine) here, is that WiS could do for EVE more than any other change, pretty much ever. BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, it has to be properly done.

Imagine logging into EVE, and instead of staring at your ship, ending up in a huge vibrant gorgeous space station full of people, surrounded by muted conversations, the announcements, the holo-advertisements floating above. Totally different feel, right? Imagine actually walking up to an NPC and having a conversation with him, rather than just clicking his portrait and hitting accept. Totally different experience. And this wouldn't mean you HAVE to do it this way, you would still be able to do it from your pod remotely, if you didn't want to, but the option would be there.

Now, add meaningful gameplay. Like flying into a wormhole, finding a space hulk, and going into it wearing a suit of armor, armed with a heavy bolter a'la Warhammer 40k? And finding artefacts (or rogue drone AI) inside. Again, totally different to just clicking the item in space and clicking a ship's module and waiting for it to cycle through and say "success" or "nothing was salvaged".

IF, and like the BIG BUT this is a BIG IF, they were able to actually pull this off, without letting EVE itself atrophy and die in the 2-3 decades it will take CCP with their glacial pace to actually do this, they would have such a unique game that I honestly can't see it dying any time soon, it would only grow provided it is maintained properly.

But quite frankly I just don't see it happening. It took years to get Incarna to a state where it's just a room with one person in it. Something other MMOs wouldn't even consider a gameplay demo, never mind a full fledged expansion. But I honestly believe such a change could easily double the amount of players EVE has, maybe even triple or quadruple it. Simple fact is, a lot of people like Sci-Fi. But not a lot of people find flying a ship in a circle (without manual control, mind!) all that entertaining. Avatar-based gameplay however is tried, tested and true successful mechanic. And EVE doesn't have it. Except for the closet.


I play EvE for flying spaceships, and currently talk to NPC agents once in a never. Being that I play an MMO, I interact primarily with the other players. I don't need to have a conversation with a scripted NPC because I can have one with another person.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon