These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE would get so many more subs IF...?

First post
Author
Anslo
Scope Works
#141 - 2012-08-24 13:50:35 UTC
CCP Sisyphus wrote:
just thought I'd say: Some interesting ideas in here - along with the normal flotsam and jetsam that needs to be ignored.

Shocked+Twisted+ Pirate+Bear = Eve


Does this mean I get a job for crowd sourcing for you guys? :D....

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#142 - 2012-08-24 13:59:03 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Ghost of Truth wrote:
Easy.

1.Make High Sec as easy and safe as possible, but without any serious ISK prizes.Not even what it has now.Not even LVL 4 missions or any serious profitable mining.A character after 3-4 months will have to move on to get on higher Incomes.Add a really epic arc to get people on the game mechanics and UI and story.Use high sec for Story Arc Missions and Industry.

2.Move any profitable thing from High sec to Low sec.Even war decs.This should be the main playing area for the majority.

3.Nullsec switches to massive ,obscene (yes, even bigger) amounts of income in comparison (not idle cash cows like TECH) , but more dangerous and costly to keep sovereignty (example, one timer for all structures, maximum reinforce 24 hours).


Item 2 - why are you trying to dictate how others play Eve?


I am not. I merely suggesting. CCP will dictate how and when. And that's their proper Job and they are doing it even now.They dictate how we play.Deal with it.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#143 - 2012-08-24 14:08:02 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
In the issue of PvP vs PvE there needs to be a bit more understanding of why different people enjoy different play styles. I think it has to do with how they experience The Rush. Some call it The PvP shakes, but either way, its caused by adrenaline.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like, or just play as solo players.

People who do not get The Rush can also enjoy activities like fishing, a sport that is more popular that any computer game, even WoW. Or puzzle games, or solitaire, or Golf (one of the most popular pastimes on the planet). These players like an activity that occupies the mind, is relaxing, and gives one a gentle feeling of accomplishment as they watch the isk pile up. For them, a certain amount of repetition is not boring, its reassuring and relaxing.

People who avoid PvP space combat are not afraid of losing their stuff, they are trying to avoid exposure to adrenaline. Adrenaline also cases some bad side effects (http://www.ehow.com/about_5038314_effects-adrenaline-rush.htmlf) to the point I'm wondering if games that have non-consensual PvP may need health warnings, or will at some point become regulated.

If part of the game can be made "Adrenaline free" more such people would be retained. (CCP, I'm sure you got statistics on how many people stop playing after their first non-consensual PvP experience.) How can that be done? Well, high sec is already very close.

If you are not in a player corp and stay in high sec all you have to deal with are suicide ganks. An interesting question is if having suicide ganks in the game increase or decrease subs. If they were removed, would it really impact the game as a whole much, or just impact those few players who like to do them?

Also CCP mentioned (at fanfest) the idea of a "Corp lite", a player "corp" that is little more than a chat channel. It cannot join an alliance, or put up a POS, or be in a war, and it pays the NPC corp tax. Players already set these up, maybe we need it formalized into the game for the adrenaline adverse.


How then do you explain people like me, who come home from work and shoots npcs to relax, then logs on main, joins a roam and kills stuff?
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2012-08-24 14:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Matriarch Prime
I think it may be important to differentiate between what is essential and what can be changed.

Personally, I don't think suicide ganking and ninja looting/salvaging in high sec is essential. Pushing those activities to low and null and leaving high sec to the "carebears" would result in a better experience for both PvE and PVP. Player that wish to engage in such activies do so only to other players that have accepted the risks of flying in that space. And gives more meaning to security rating. Those players who do not wish to PvP are not subject to the whims of a bored PvPer.

Thinking about it another way. To a strictly PvE player being subject to ganking and stealing leaves them no recourse but to simply log off. It is the only real option for that playstyle because he/she realizes that to engage or otherwise deter such harassment is to play right into what the opponent wants. The only real way to win is to not play. And that right there is the problem.

I like big guns. I can not lie. You other suckas can't deny. When I warp in, with an itty bity sig, with an arty in your face, you get sprung. You want to pull out your debuffs, 'cause you want to loot my stuff...deep, in a worm with nary, an escape but you can't stop staring. 'Cause, Oh crap!, Baby's got Point!

Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#145 - 2012-08-24 14:40:15 UTC
The main problem is that High sec has no clear role.It is a mishmash of the starter,safe regions of other MMOGs, but with the brutality
of EVE.A new guy cant be killed in starter systems, but he can get ganged by 30 destroyers 2 jumps away for the evulz.

Hold the hand of new players as much as possible.Create missions ( Super Epic Arcs?) in completely safe areas to get used to the UI,Story,mechanics and gradually and as slow as possible introduce the hard parts of the game.By the time he meets his first Gangers, Can Flippers and scummers, he has invested time in the game, and the time someone has played a MMOG is proportional to the chances of staying. 'Theme Park' parts of Eve would not be bad.A completely 'Theme park' Eve would.
Shaalira D'arc
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2012-08-24 15:04:08 UTC
WiS, sad to say. The biggest problems I've had in bringing in players from other games was their inability to relate to their characters and how sterile interactions were. I think the rage against WiS had a lot less to do with the concept itself, than the really bad implementation, which included both a lack of results (1 room!!) and the sidelining of all other issues that the existing playerbase found important.

As far as the new player experience, tutorial revamps help a lot. But they don't address a lot of the issues which make the learning curve so steep.

- Overview settings. The default overview tab sucks. It's really bad. Give new players some useful default tabs, and they'll be a lot less confused. Teaching players how to change their overview settings is like pulling teeth, and gives the impression of needless complexity.

- Stylistic, more intuitive UI. It doesn't help EVE's reputation of 'spreadsheets in space' when most of our UI really does look like spreadsheets.

- Fitting and stats tutorial. Many games are accessible because stats are self-explanatory. If you roll up a random character in a random game and see stats like 'strength,' 'agility,' 'attack,' 'speed,' etc., you have an intuitive sense of what all this is about. EVE mechanics are unique and arcane. A newbie comes in and sees 'signature radius' and 'scan strength resolution' and just glosses over it all. Teaching them what this stuff means will help them early on, as well as showcase one of EVE's strengths - the depth of the strategy behind ship to ship combat.

- Crimewatch will help a lot, since many newbies get stuck over the archaic rules of engagement which gets a lot of them popped by Concord.


Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#147 - 2012-08-24 15:17:45 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
You need to ask the question "does eve need a bunch of new players in the 1st place.

For me, the answer is NO. EVE needs to grow some sure, games either grow or die, it needs enough subscirbers to stay viable, but beyond that, screw it.

You act like there aren't enough players to throw a "wrench into the current power structure".

There are more than enough, If EVE Miner that Goons blew (of paid to have blown) out of a ship fitted a rifter, fleeted up and went to Goon controlled nullsec one day, Deklien would fall....until some rare goon with 2 braincells to rub together told his mates to fit smart bombs, which knowing goons would take at least a week ti figure out. Then the "High Sec Justice Blob" could just switch to Mission running ravens, and Deklien Coaltion would die in a hail of cruise missiles....

But the high sec crowd doesn't want to do that. More people of YOUR type Anslo isn't goint to change anything, it's just going to make ships really really cheap because of all the mining lol.

And you tend to act like the game isn't "diverse" enough. I've got 12 characters spread across New Eden and it's Wormhole space, seems plenty "diverse: to me.

EVE's population is growing at a fast enough rate for me (if not for CCP), if anything I fear an influx of "new blood" will provide financial pressure for ccp to turn EVE more into an average mass appeal game , breaking away from being the EXCELLENT niche game it already is.

The truth is anslo, people like you advocate"change" simply for the sake of change, because you can't be happy with what you have or the current state of anything. CCP should resist change based on nothing.....




You do not understand what a niche part of the market means.Niche doesn't means hard to understand or get, nor that a niche product cant grow to mainstream.The ideal thing will be for a niche to create a new or heavy influenced mainstream .Also,you thing there is a "my way of playing' and 'your way of playing' in the game.There is not.There is CCPs wayonly and companies need to grow.That is not a bad thing.You can keep quality while growing.Despite what everyone says It can be quality=quantity.
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#148 - 2012-08-24 15:23:13 UTC
Eve Online would get more subs if you could order a pizza online, from the ingame browser, or better yet! Subs!

.

mkint
#149 - 2012-08-24 15:31:54 UTC
Figure out a way to attract recruiting corps and rookies to live in the same systems. Could be simple lvl 4 agents there, or new 'work contracts. Could put rewards in low level missions that are useful to corps like pos fuel. Revamp the corp interface and mechanics to remove the disincentives to recruit and add new incentives. Every corp and alliance in eve should have an easy route to rookie systems and a reason to go there. Get people engaged.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#150 - 2012-08-24 16:47:03 UTC
Quote:

You do not understand what a niche part of the market means.Niche doesn't means hard to understand or get, nor that a niche product cant grow to mainstream.The ideal thing will be for a niche to create a new or heavy influenced mainstream .Also,you thing there is a "my way of playing' and 'your way of playing' in the game.There is not.There is CCPs wayonly and companies need to grow.That is not a bad thing.You can keep quality while growing.Despite what everyone says It can be quality=quantity.


We know a product can grow to be mainstream. we don't want this product to be mainstream. If we want mainstream, we'll go download hello kitti online.

Even a "heavily influenced" mainstream is still, well ,mainstream. I'll continue to ask the eternal question that none of the OMG CHANGE IT crowd never seems able to answer: WHY?

Why play EVE is you don't like the fundamental core vision of the game? If I disliked to sandbox, pvp, players as content focused game play of a game like EVE, i'd be playing one of the thousands of other games that cater to my likes rather than spenidng years (in some people's case, NINE YEARS) trying to change a niche game to mainstream.

My view of eve is very conservative, change only when needed, otherwise leave it the heck alone. And I'm sure my other fellow Space-Conservatives are with me! Vote EVE Conservative Party in the next CSM election, not I just gotta go make a character called EVE TORY or something lol) .
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#151 - 2012-08-24 17:08:18 UTC
seriously though, if CCP wants to fix the bounty system. They have to make it so that a bounty on your head is something that the player doesn't actually want. I laugh when i see 10k isk bounties. Just because the player wants their picture to say "wanted"

there needs to be a way for the crime watch system to tally up your criminal acts and set the bounty for you and then additionally the player who receives the bounty on their head should NOT want it for fear of some consequence other than financial. It's the only way I can see the system not being exploited or rendered completely useless.
drunk asfck
Doomheim
#152 - 2012-08-24 17:16:41 UTC
eve has been running so long becouse the quality of players not the quantaty

1 thing i think is eve should stay a sandbox and not force players to play anyother way other than the way they want to

if want to live in empire fine you pay your sub

if want live in lo-sec fine you pay your sub

if want live in 0.0 fine you pay your sub

when you try force ppl to play a way they dont want youll lose subs

everyone is difrent

some ppl dont av time to sit and shoot pos for 2 hours

some ppl are away for weeks so cant comit to corps/allainces

some ppl are just antisocial and like to play alone

some ppl like to band together get drunk on coms with m8's and chill

eve for the most part is liek this thats why alot us been playing 7 to 10 years

WIS would have been awsome for eve tbh it would made eve much more sociable for newer players to interact with each other when they loged in i also think CCP should give as much suport to corps like EvE uni who go out they way to try hlp newer players



Annie Freemont
Doomheim
#153 - 2012-08-24 17:27:17 UTC
arcca jeth wrote:
seriously though, if CCP wants to fix the bounty system. They have to make it so that a bounty on your head is something that the player doesn't actually want. I laugh when i see 10k isk bounties. Just because the player wants their picture to say "wanted"

there needs to be a way for the crime watch system to tally up your criminal acts and set the bounty for you and then additionally the player who receives the bounty on their head should NOT want it for fear of some consequence other than financial. It's the only way I can see the system not being exploited or rendered completely useless.


I'm all for voluntary PvP flags that you can toggle on and off in high sec for those wishing to PvP without doing the can thing or war dec thing. And for the bounty system to actually allow players to buy a contract on someone's bounty.

Yes, I am an alt.

Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#154 - 2012-08-24 17:37:41 UTC
Annie Freemont wrote:
arcca jeth wrote:
seriously though, if CCP wants to fix the bounty system. They have to make it so that a bounty on your head is something that the player doesn't actually want. I laugh when i see 10k isk bounties. Just because the player wants their picture to say "wanted"

there needs to be a way for the crime watch system to tally up your criminal acts and set the bounty for you and then additionally the player who receives the bounty on their head should NOT want it for fear of some consequence other than financial. It's the only way I can see the system not being exploited or rendered completely useless.


I'm all for voluntary PvP flags that you can toggle on and off in high sec for those wishing to PvP without doing the can thing or war dec thing. And for the bounty system to actually allow players to buy a contract on someone's bounty.



While I am all on fixing Bounties, the issue of the trhead is what big thing will get thousands of new players.Thousands.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#155 - 2012-08-24 17:45:03 UTC
Removing local would get more subs.
Sturmwolke
#156 - 2012-08-24 18:34:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The problem lies in making them realise that their PvE activities do not, will not, and must not exist in a vacuum and that they have to live with the vagaries of an open and free-for-all-PvP universe. As history has shown, this combination is very very rare and rather attracts soon-gone whiners rather than useful customers. Some might stick around, yes, but will that be any more than those that already do or will it just create a larger volume of whining about how EVE does not behave the way they expect an MMO to behave?

I'd have to scratch my head on this. Years back, I had no inkling how EVE would play like .... however, I learned that losses weren't to be taken lightly (when all you've got to your name is less than 5 mil) and there's every chance of interference from other players (can flipping, ninja salvaging etc.) for any sort of PVE activities. Despite that, I never saw it as an issue or problem because it's not beyond what you'd expect out of a game. Perhaps being familiar with old skool games/concepts tempered my expectations somewhat.

Whatever the outcome, EVE will still need the PVE bait. The current bait is dried up, worn out and tastes bland - figuratively speaking.
It's about due for an overhaul.

Tippia wrote:
If you're a trader, volume moves faster in the trade hubs, where everyone gathers. Mission runners don't consume nearly enough of anything, except maybe ammo, to be a solid customer base because they only need a handful of anything. The repeat sales are absolutely tiny compared to the volume that continuous ship loss through war creates.

It's meant as quantitative, rather than qualitative, to paint the PVE impact. Trade hubs usually sprout near mission hubs ... or rather the concentration of players around the mission hubs makes setting up a trade hub viable. While it may not be always true, it is mostly true for Amarr (Penirgman) and Dodixie (before the agent change). When you have that much mass of players congregating at the same spot, it sets off a chain reaction. The scammers move in. The griefers move in. The outlying service industries move in. The spammers move in. The corps/recruiters move in .... everything including the kitchen sink moves in.

Tippia wrote:
Moreover, PvE people are no more integral to building and harvesting than anyone else because anyone can (and will) take those up if the need arises.

No, that doesn't work in practice. If someone's interest in EVE is heavily towards the PVP elements, doing the mandatory PVE day-in and day-out, will erode his/her interest in playing EVE - if sustained over a long period of time. Don't forget, PVE centric players typically form the logistical backbones for many corps/alliances, spending most of their time in the two quadrants (build & harvest).
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#157 - 2012-08-24 19:05:29 UTC
Anslo wrote:
So originally, I wanted to troll this post here, but then it actually got me thinking about real answers and opinions to this question.Shocked

In the spirit of CCP Soundwave's "Little Things" post and the precursor to it, Akita T's " The 1000 Papercuts Project," why not make a thread about how CCP could REALLY get more subscribers? Not just keep its current base happy, but attract new and fresh blood to diversify the game, even throw a wrench in the current power balance a bit.


EVE would get more subscribers, if there were more and better ways for carebears to defend against or retaliate towards griefers.

I'm not saying we carebears should be protected from griefers, or even gankers in general, but the game design strongly favours the attacker over the defender. If I want to do something other than PVP, then I have to fit my ship for that non-PVP purpose in order to do that other thing well, and that means I'm very easy to gank.

Isn't merely easy enough? Without the very part?

Also, the options to get revenge are very limited. The bounty system isn't working. With a well-defined bounty system, if I placed a bounty on Anslo's head of 200 million ISK, then what most likely would emerge would be that other players inflicted pain and hurt on Anslo that is more or less proportional to the size of the bounty, in order to earn the payout. I'd actually be nearly guaranteed that Anslo would suffer to the tnue of 200M ISK.

Instead, what happens in the current bounty system, which is by no means well designed, is that it boils down to me donating 200 million ISK to him, because he and one of his friends will scam-kill him to get the money. The bounty system doesn't even try to verify that any appreciable damage has been inflicted on Anslo, the target of my bounty. It doesn't check averaged hull values, or destroyed cargo, or lost implants in the cast of a pod kill. It simply registers that a kill has taken place, and that warrants payout of the full bounty.

I'm not satisfied with a kill having taken place.

My thirst for revenge demands that actual harm be inflicted upon the character on whom I've paid the bounty. Actual harm that at least tries to be proportional to the size of the bounty.

I don't want an EVE galaxy for fluffy hippie bunnies.

But I want a better consequence balance, and I want game mechanics that don't favour the attacker to such an extreme degree.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2012-08-24 19:26:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
i think eve could get quite a lot of new players if there was another way of gaining skillpoints (or skills), at least for the first 10 million SP, that would certainly help keeping the "i want to play this game so badly, but i cant do anything at all" crowd at hand

also more group content and reasons to go on a roam (lets to on a roam for fun is not a good one, lets go on a roam and rob some of the local tech towers of their weekly production would be a better one)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#159 - 2012-08-24 19:42:32 UTC
Annie Freemont wrote:
I'm all for voluntary PvP flags that you can toggle on and off in high sec for those wishing to PvP without doing the can thing or war dec thing.
You realise what such a flag would mean, I hope?

A "no PvP" switch in EVE would have to have at least the following restrictions:
· You can obviously no longer lock any player ship.
· You can no longer activate any kind of AoE weaponry or module.
· You can no longer use the market, contracts or the trading window.
· You can no longer access or manage POSes and their services.
· You can no longer mine.
· You can no longer shoot rats.
· You can no longer open any kind of container in space.
· You can no longer use the on-board scanner or scan probes.
· You can no longer be in a fleet.
· You can no longer use salvagers.
· You can no longer access the industry interface.
· You can no longer access player-sovereign systems.
· You can no longer access free-floating permanent sites in space.
· You can no longer see local.
· You no longer show up in local.
· You can no longer see other player ships on the overview.
· You no longer show up on other player's overviews.
· You can no longer join a player corp.

…because without these restriction (and probably many more that I haven't thought of), you are PvPing on unequal terms and you are given hideously exploitable advantages that will screw over the game something fierce.

Sturmwolke wrote:
I'd have to scratch my head on this. Years back, I had no inkling how EVE would play like .... however, I learned that losses weren't to be taken lightly (when all you've got to your name is less than 5 mil) and there's every chance of interference from other players (can flipping, ninja salvaging etc.) for any sort of PVE activities. Despite that, I never saw it as an issue or problem because it's not beyond what you'd expect out of a game. Perhaps being familiar with old skool games/concepts tempered my expectations somewhat.
Probably. If you look at any of the PvE whiner threads these days, the one thing that immediately becomes abundantly clear is that they do not expect EVE to be different. In fact, it's the very difference that have them up in arms and they demand that the game be made to match their expectations, rather than the other way around.

Quote:
No, that doesn't work in practice. If someone's interest in EVE is heavily towards the PVP elements, doing the mandatory PVE day-in and day-out, will erode his/her interest in playing EVE - if sustained over a long period of time.
I'm not talking about the PvE — I'm talking about the two activities you mentioned: building and harvesting, which aside from the injection of ISK is completely separate to PvE. Building in particular is low-maintenance and completely devoid of any “Environment” interaction and inherently competitive so that part isn't dependent on “PvE:ers” in the slightest.

At any rate, the fundamental point stands: the non-carebear crowd can (and do) easily pick up the slack from the carebear side to maintain the production side of EVE, whereas the opposite isn't the case: the carebears don't stand a chance in hell to pick up the slack on the destruction-side, so as far as being “integral” to the whole process, they're wa-a-ay down the list…
Anslo
Scope Works
#160 - 2012-08-24 19:44:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
You realise what such a flag would mean, I hope?

A "no PvP" switch in EVE would have to have at least the following restrictions:
· You can obviously no longer lock any player ship.
· You can no longer activate any kind of AoE weaponry or module.
· You can no longer use the market, contracts or the trading window.
· You can no longer access or manage POSes and their services.
· You can no longer mine.
· You can no longer shoot rats.
· You can no longer open any kind of container in space.
· You can no longer use the on-board scanner or scan probes.
· You can no longer be in a fleet.
· You can no longer use salvagers.
· You can no longer access the industry interface.
· You can no longer access player-sovereign systems.
· You can no longer access free-floating permanent sites in space.
· You can no longer see local.
· You no longer show up in local.
· You can no longer see other player ships on the overview.
· You no longer show up on other player's overviews.
· You can no longer join a player corp.

…because without these restriction (and probably many more that I haven't thought of), you are PvPing on unequal terms and you are given hideously exploitable advantages that will screw over the game something fierce.


Tippia you and I damn well know that their interpretation of PvP was pewpew. Stop trying to change people's definition with your crap. PvP flag=I don't wanna ******* shoot you flag, not EVE IS PVP SO YOU CANT PLAY LOLOLOL flag.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]