These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP making progress to a better EVE
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#61 - 2012-06-09 11:00:37 UTC
Wrong thread :|

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Josef Djugashvilis
#62 - 2012-06-09 11:02:20 UTC
D3F4ULT wrote:
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
This has been discussed before, the potential rage quitting make it probably not going to happen


I know, it's been batted so many times, but things are looking up to making it happen. I could care less about the AFK guy with his 4 alt accounts, he's afk anyhow not playing so why is he upset that he won't be playing what he doesn't play?

derp.


How do you actually know if some one is afk, as opposed to simply assuming they are?

More facts and less ill informed opinon please.

This is not a signature.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#63 - 2012-06-09 11:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Talon SilverHawk
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad



I dont play the game to give the bored 0.0 nubs their entertainment, I do it for mine.


I'm not here to let you ruin my game, I'm here to have fun in mine.


Cheers


Tal
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#64 - 2012-06-09 11:10:23 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad


Well, we can't have that can we? We have to keep L4 out of the Risk vs Reward EvE Balance.

We have to keep their risk free ISK fountain going.

The Tears Must Flow
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#65 - 2012-06-09 11:12:00 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad



I dont play the game to give the bored 0.0 nubs their entertainment, I do it for mine.


I'm not here to let you ruin my game, I'm here to have fun in mine.


Cheers


Tal


Good exemple of a Theme Park MMO playstyle.

The Tears Must Flow
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#66 - 2012-06-09 11:12:54 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad


Well, we can't have that can we? We have to keep L4 out of the Risk vs Reward EvE Balance.

We have to keep their risk free ISK fountain going.



aw diddums, is me playing the sandbox in the way I want, upsetting you, awwwwwww here's a tissue. Dry your eyes mate.

Tal


Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#67 - 2012-06-09 11:13:44 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad



I dont play the game to give the bored 0.0 nubs their entertainment, I do it for mine.


I'm not here to let you ruin my game, I'm here to have fun in mine.


Cheers


Tal


Good exemple of a Theme Park MMO playstyle.



Lol at you and your poor trolling skills. Roll

Tal


Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#68 - 2012-06-09 11:18:03 UTC
Tell you what lets remove 0.0 sovereignty from the game, add more NPC stations to 0.0 all regions, and open up all player 0.0 stations to anyone who wants to visit . Lol You would immediately see the 0.0 population grow.

Tal
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#69 - 2012-06-09 11:20:45 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:


Where all your bored little bees will be waiting ? Roll No thanks

Tal


Oh no the mission runners might have to take some basic precautions while they make money SadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSadSad



I dont play the game to give the bored 0.0 nubs their entertainment, I do it for mine.


I'm not here to let you ruin my game, I'm here to have fun in mine.


Cheers


Tal


Good exemple of a Theme Park MMO playstyle.



Lol at you and your poor trolling skills. Roll

Tal




They are only two possibilities, you're either a troll or you are just insanely ignorant on this subject.

But then again, Theme Parkers are known for this, they don't have a clue about Sandbox MMO's, so you are probably just being ignorant.

The Tears Must Flow
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#70 - 2012-06-09 11:23:26 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:


They are only two possibilities, you're either a troll or you are just insanely ignorant on this subject.

But then again, Theme Parkers are known for this, they don't have a clue about Sandbox MMO's, so you are probably just being ignorant.


Poor child Sad
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#71 - 2012-06-09 11:26:10 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:


They are only two possibilities, you're either a troll or you are just insanely ignorant on this subject.

But then again, Theme Parkers are known for this, they don't have a clue about Sandbox MMO's, so you are probably just being ignorant.


Poor child Sad


Indeed, sucks to be you. I would be mad too if i was playing world of warcraft thinking it was a Sandbox MMO.

The Tears Must Flow
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#72 - 2012-06-09 11:31:52 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:


They are only two possibilities, you're either a troll or you are just insanely ignorant on this subject.

But then again, Theme Parkers are known for this, they don't have a clue about Sandbox MMO's, so you are probably just being ignorant.


Poor child Sad


Indeed, sucks to be you. I would be mad too if i was playing world of warcraft thinking it was a Sandbox MMO.


Your right totally, sucks to be me, I had better go and biomass myself. Now run along to mummy, I think I can hear her calling you. Give her my regards Big smile
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-06-09 11:43:32 UTC
Remove gate entry

Remove local

Move level 4's to low-sec

Suddenly low and null-sec will become a lot more populated.

The things that keep people away from these systems is in fact gate camping and local freebie intel that campers and such take advantage of. Having a free choice of where to enter in a system (exit would still have to be point specific like it is now) as well as no freebie intel would make a lot more people daring.

Of course, ways of tracking/finding ships would require a slight rework/boost.

Right now the gate system (and local intel), whilst logical in some ways, is also a hell of a double-edged sword. If people really want to see low and null-sec much more populated then they better start looking at the core problems that keep people away from said systems. Excuses like "use alts to scout" and such does not hold in the long run - not everyone is as "hardcore" as the people who suggest these meta-strategies.

In an ironic way I'd also say that the hardcore mentality of the people that want to see said systems more populated is also a small contributing factor as to why people want to avoid these systems. Think about that.
alexia santiago
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-06-09 12:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: alexia santiago
Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

So - call it ragequit, or call it another way - CCP is simply not cutting incomes just to please 1/4 of their player base
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
#75 - 2012-06-09 12:06:59 UTC
OP this will never happen.
alexia santiago wrote:
Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

This is not the reason that it won't happen btw.
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-06-09 12:20:04 UTC
You're making low-sec sound like a bunch of whining children that are upset the puppy they've been kicking won't come back.
Tagera
Dog Nation
#77 - 2012-06-09 12:27:33 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Have all mission agents work on a supply and demand principle where the more players are running a particular agent's missions, the more he can lower his payouts to take advantage of the labour surplus, and vice versa.

This would do wonders for restoring risk/reward balance as the more daring mission runners ventured out to take advantage of little-used agents in unused corners of lowsec and npc 0.0.




Not a bad idea actually, also maybe CCP could get someone on the side to come up with more mission ideas. Make missions and mining more dynamic and demanding. The best mining idea I've seen was make so the miner has to run the miners over the ore seams. Make the level 4s tougher also. So that you need at least a small fleet to get through them better. The cruiser rats in high sec is also a good one.
Herr Hammer Draken
#78 - 2012-06-09 12:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Hammer Draken
Yonis Kador wrote:
After giving this more thought (mostly on my hour-long commute to work) I'm less confident in my earlier "magic feather" statement. I'm now convinced that this idea (and especially more loot) will not motivate risk-averse players to low/null.

And I think the proof this is true can be found in Incursions.

Not only do incursions offer increased isk and dynamic gameplay, but they appear in high sec and actually disrupt the lives of the risk-averse. Tanked rats appear in the systems these guys normally mine and mission in - totally inconveniencing all.

So if CCP brought the party to the risk-averse, gave them access to increased isk, and penalized them for inaction - and they still didn't fight - well, lvl 4s in low sec sure won't do the trick either.

For a diametric shift of any sort to occur, there has to be a concerted, designed effort to change the ways mining and pvp are utilized in this game. They are too incompatible. Ships with dual mining and pvp functions may be necessary. Random rats may have to start popping up in belts and outside stations. Safety from crime shouldn't translate to safety from the universe. I think people could survive a cruiser rat every now and then in 0.5s.

Maybe CCP could also spawn more gravimetric sigs in certain sec systems and have various rat spawns pop up every few minutes instead of every 15. Increase variation in the minimal risks the risk-averse do face on a daily basis. The risk-averse may bite on new high sec rocks to mine and would need protection while they mine the site.

Ideas need to be generated which cause mining and pvp to overlap in novel ways, offering incentives to miners to engage in pvp - but perhaps not on the massive scale of Incursions. And if the incentive is great mining in high sec with increased risk from pve elements, it might start the ball rolling. And then in a graduated way, you move more of the playerbase away from 100 percent risk-aversion and toward less apprehension to exploration with additional updates.

I may not support the risk-averse being offered up as scooby snacks for risk takers' gaming pleasure but I also recognize that a huge, stagnant, risk-averse playerbase is not conducive to the longevity of this game.

Yonis Kador


Good work. But a thought occured to me. Are you working under the assumption that the risk averse are that way continuously? I ask because I believe a lot of players that start out in high sec leave the game after about 6 months or less.
Long before they ever get to the point of wandering out of high sec. They get replaced by newer high sec players.
I think high sec is a constant rotation of new players with only a few that stay on past 6 months. That few are spread out all over the spectrum some going to nul some going to low and some going to industrialists in high. But the majority is turn over.
So while you see a lot of players in high I think that is mostly constant turn over. Perhaps the key to more low and null sec population is simply longevity. Get the player base to stay with the game longer. That is my take on it anyway.

For example I have tracked 2,000 new toons (many or some could be alts) come through the sisters of eve epic arc in the last 30 days. If the game was growing by 2,000 new players per month our player base would be getting huge over time. But it is not so how many are also leaving every month? Just about as many as start or constant turn over.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Uinuva Karma
Doomheim
#79 - 2012-06-09 12:37:38 UTC
Jonni Favorite wrote:
Uinuva Karma wrote:
What makes people so risk-averse, that they cannot leave hisec?

This is such an incredibly awesome virtual world, and you hisec people miss out on 90% of it.

I mean, all you lose is what you fly, why so scared?



You're also supersilly, missing the forest for the trees. You assume that every *high sec dweller* is exclusively that. Get a clue kid!


So why are you so scared, then?

Captain Kirk didn't stay in hisec. 
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-06-09 12:40:35 UTC
alexia santiago wrote:
Simply not going to happen because a recent offical survey issued by CCP has made clear that only 25% of players are interested in pvp.

So - call it ragequit, or call it another way - CCP is simply not cutting incomes just to please 1/4 of their player base


Because said survey was obviously completed by every single player.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.