These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kharaxus
Eve Academy Corporation
#181 - 2012-08-25 07:02:19 UTC
A player "academy" people have fly in (separate server?), for a minimum and maximum amount of time for free.

The academy would be highly restricted, and give the players all the elements of EVE, in an New Eden atmosphere. There would be specific elements missing, but the basic fundamentals necessary to be "successful" in Eve as that may be, would be there for the player to use until the player is ready to transfer character permanently(absolutely) to New Eden.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#182 - 2012-08-25 07:36:04 UTC
Since we are already hooked, IMHO, we are just guessing as to why new players may leave the game at the end of the trial period and proposing potential fixes on that flawed basis. I wonder if CCP has ever considered sending an email at the end of the trial period asking the potential player why they didn't convert to a subscription, in an effort to gather some hard data?

For me, the greatest attraction Eve has to offer is the one shared universe, in which my actions do count (no matter how small) and anyone else has the opportunity to counter, directly, through their own actions. Both contribute to the evolving story of New Eden. The danger in the introduction of PvP flags and increased solo PvE is that it may erode one of the founding principles of Eve and risk dire consequences for the game's future.

A better approach might be if player corps had a pressing need for the low skilled new player, such that they would be actively recruited and welcomed with open arms, rather than seen as a source of scam targets and easy kills. I honestly don't know what to suggest to bring this to fruition. Sure, it would probably involve changes to the game content (ring mining for tech, prehaps, for example) but it would also require the involvement and backing of the established Eve community to be successful.
Josef Djugashvilis
#183 - 2012-08-25 07:45:04 UTC
I have given this some thought and tried to remember how I felt when I first started.

My suggestion would be to increase the trial period to at least a month.

This would enable new players to get some feel for the game, and, most importantly, feel that they have some stake in Eve in terms of skill points, experience of missions, pvp or whatever, and some ships etc.

A two week trial period means that you have very little knowledge of the game, very little to lose and will more easily quit.


This is not a signature.
Anubis Star
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2012-08-25 08:28:16 UTC
WiS
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#185 - 2012-08-25 09:00:50 UTC
Anslo wrote:


A Ship versus Ship Attacking Flag would be beneficial to those who do not want to engage in pewpew.


BAHAHA LOL.

LOL.


....


LOL.

Terrible idea.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#186 - 2012-08-25 10:56:09 UTC
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it
drunk asfck
Doomheim
#187 - 2012-08-25 11:57:28 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it



why would they want ppl to leave hi-sec

they pay they sub they should b able live were they like
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#188 - 2012-08-25 13:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
....it got rid of local chat revealing who is in system. Camping would be far less prevalent in all activities.
Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
#189 - 2012-08-25 13:10:28 UTC
Shaalira D'arc wrote:
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.




Yea the terminology is pretty unintuitive. Took me 2 months to bother to figure out what scan resolution is. Just calling it targeting would be a tad more direct. Really though, a game should not have you run all over the internet to figure out the rules, I can understand certain things, like where loot is etc, but not the mechanics of the game itself., we have all done it, but it's not something most people want to do when they play a game, this is not supposed to be a college exam.

Another thing is ability to do fitting tests in game, this is important yet we have to go and use third party tools, someone new just get's confused with all that gear, also again it's extra work to sign up, get your key, then dork about in some third party app.
Then there is the way stats like how the capacitor usage works(could be avoided with a good in game fitting tool)

From what I chatted with some who invited people, many loose interest fast, they like the idea but it seems to overwhelming, explain things better, give the right information and tools. I don't think pvp everywhere is as much of a problem compared to this as many don't even make it that far.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#190 - 2012-08-25 13:48:26 UTC
Salpad wrote:
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.


Quoted for truth. It has taken FOUR YEARS until CCP conceded that something was wrong when a miner risked 300 million ISK and the guys suicide ganking him risked nothing because of a design flaw.

I already suggested a bounty hunting system that would make life a bit harder for the target, which included NPC tracking his moves, the ability to overwhelm him with multiple hunters and the ability to spread the revenge to his flight mates, plus a "no loss, no pay" system as you pointed: If payment are 200 million, the hunter won't get them until he blows 400 million worth of the target's stuff. To prevent abuse, the reward should be capped to the victim's initial loss, though.

Those are CONSEQUENCES, and PvP needs them. Killing someone should worry out the agressor, rather than be disregarded as a free shot of tears.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#191 - 2012-08-25 23:30:35 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it


I'm not asking to opt out of combat.

I'm just asking for well designed game mechanics.

The current game mechanics massively favour the gankers and griefers, and gives the carebears too few defenses. With well designed game mechanics, ganking would still be possible but would be more difficult. Would tend to require the use of more expensive ships, more expensive modules, perhaps even rigged ships. Would tend to require group effort, meaning you need to get at least 2-3 other buddies to help you if you want to achieve a good gank.

We have emergent gameplay now, but not all emergent gameplay is equally good, and if the game mechanics were better designed, theng that gameplay which emerges would become better. More varied. Less one-sided. Less predictable. There'd be less of "ganker always wins, even with minimal effort".
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#192 - 2012-08-25 23:56:36 UTC
There was a dev? post about retention statistics, it had graphs Attention ...

If CCP focussed on where players quit the most at certain milestones then retention has the potential to increase.

For the most part idea's the playerbase throw around are generally either stupid or **** (Oopsmine included), so if CCP ignores the suggestions of it's playerbase and gives it's server logs thorough and rigorous analysis they can theorycraft in meetings to get some sensible nonshit ideas.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#193 - 2012-08-25 23:59:40 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it


I'm not asking to opt out of combat.

I'm just asking for well designed game mechanics.

The current game mechanics massively favour the gankers and griefers, and gives the carebears too few defenses. With well designed game mechanics, ganking would still be possible but would be more difficult. Would tend to require the use of more expensive ships, more expensive modules, perhaps even rigged ships. Would tend to require group effort, meaning you need to get at least 2-3 other buddies to help you if you want to achieve a good gank.

We have emergent gameplay now, but not all emergent gameplay is equally good, and if the game mechanics were better designed, theng that gameplay which emerges would become better. More varied. Less one-sided. Less predictable. There'd be less of "ganker always wins, even with minimal effort".


yeah the scales totally tip towards the gankers and "griefers" and not the AFK bears who have concord, security status mechanics and GCC mechanics in their favor

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Paul Oliver
Doomheim
#194 - 2012-08-26 08:30:07 UTC
EVE would get so many more subs if... the locations of Azeroth and Telara were discovered and we could bomb them with citadel missiles from orbit.
Its good to be [Gallente](http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/QEQlJ.jpg).
Akama Lowe
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#195 - 2012-08-26 10:33:23 UTC
I imagine that they would keep more of the people who briefly check the game out if they extended the learning SP buff to 3-6 months and made an effort to point the new players towards Eve Uni or similar organizations within the game that have made efforts to educate the new. The average player won't have any idea whats going on for 3-6 months and can't do anything of note until then. At least nothing that most people would find entertaining. If the game allowed newbies to see the training corps / alliances, I believe it would help retain more trial subscribers as they would have a group to talk to. Let's face it, playing internet spaceships with your online buddies is what it's about for a good percentage of people.
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2012-08-26 11:09:45 UTC
Andski wrote:
Salpad wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it


I'm not asking to opt out of combat.

I'm just asking for well designed game mechanics.

The current game mechanics massively favour the gankers and griefers, and gives the carebears too few defenses. With well designed game mechanics, ganking would still be possible but would be more difficult. Would tend to require the use of more expensive ships, more expensive modules, perhaps even rigged ships. Would tend to require group effort, meaning you need to get at least 2-3 other buddies to help you if you want to achieve a good gank.

We have emergent gameplay now, but not all emergent gameplay is equally good, and if the game mechanics were better designed, theng that gameplay which emerges would become better. More varied. Less one-sided. Less predictable. There'd be less of "ganker always wins, even with minimal effort".


yeah the scales totally tip towards the gankers and "griefers" and not the AFK bears who have concord, security status mechanics and GCC mechanics in their favor


The mechanics do favor the attacker, which isn't to say that the attacker faces no obstacles. However, an attack in high security is explicitly taking advantage of the false security of the system and concord's nonsensical and selective enforcement of the law.

Say I robbed a bank and got arrested by the police immediately, but my buddies who didn't participate in the crime could walk off in plain view of the cops with the dropped money bags. That's just silly, and so is the game's notion of criminal activity.

The attacker also gets to choose who, what, when and where to attack, and can plan to minimize his losses. (Like any good pirate should.) But the loss incurred by the attacker is nearly always trivial compared to the gain. And the attacker faces little in the way of retribution. Bears are in high sec because they don't want to PvP. They won't risk further loss by trying to get revenge if they are smart and especially if they have no inclination to PvP.

The only thing remotely difficult/bothersome about high sec ganking and ninja looting/salvaging is grinding security rating. The system is a mockery that benefits the few that exploit it at the expense of the many players who simply want to mind their own business in relative safety.

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!
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#197 - 2012-08-26 11:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alpheias
Matriarch Prime wrote:
Andski wrote:
Salpad wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
seriously, what would be the point of EVE if you can op out of combat?

concord and highsec is already more then enough, much more then necessary .. also: if you want people to leave highsec, make less of it


I'm not asking to opt out of combat.

I'm just asking for well designed game mechanics.

The current game mechanics massively favour the gankers and griefers, and gives the carebears too few defenses. With well designed game mechanics, ganking would still be possible but would be more difficult. Would tend to require the use of more expensive ships, more expensive modules, perhaps even rigged ships. Would tend to require group effort, meaning you need to get at least 2-3 other buddies to help you if you want to achieve a good gank.

We have emergent gameplay now, but not all emergent gameplay is equally good, and if the game mechanics were better designed, theng that gameplay which emerges would become better. More varied. Less one-sided. Less predictable. There'd be less of "ganker always wins, even with minimal effort".


yeah the scales totally tip towards the gankers and "griefers" and not the AFK bears who have concord, security status mechanics and GCC mechanics in their favor


The mechanics do favor the attacker, which isn't to say that the attacker faces no obstacles. However, an attack in high security is explicitly taking advantage of the false security of the system and concord's nonsensical and selective enforcement of the law.

Say I robbed a bank and got arrested by the police immediately, but my buddies who didn't participate in the crime could walk off in plain view of the cops with the dropped money bags. That's just silly, and so is the game's notion of criminal activity.

The attacker also gets to choose who, what, when and where to attack, and can plan to minimize his losses. (Like any good pirate should.) But the loss incurred by the attacker is nearly always trivial compared to the gain. And the attacker faces little in the way of retribution. Bears are in high sec because they don't want to PvP. They won't risk further loss by trying to get revenge if they are smart and especially if they have no inclination to PvP.

The only thing remotely difficult/bothersome about high sec ganking and ninja looting/salvaging is grinding security rating. The system is a mockery that benefits the few that exploit it at the expense of the many players who simply want to mind their own business in relative safety.


In that case, the compromise should be that you are forced to either form or join a player corporation if you wish to enjoy the spoils of "minding your own business" ms. 5 year old NPC corp dweller.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#198 - 2012-08-26 12:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Matriarch Prime
Back a little more on topic.

Eve does want more new players. Look at the gate camps and high sec baiting. Its all an attempt by players to interact more in a diffuse space. I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but it occurs to me that there is a simple solution.

Give players chance to become accustomed to eve in a relatively safe environment. Make high security mean something. Higher population areas already give less reward, but lets move on from the static system we have now.

Concord and corp agents aren't going to pay top dollar when there is plenty of players to hire. So have the agent and bounty rewards based on mission/ratting activity in that system. The more missions that are completed for an agent in that system, the less the rewards. This also goes along with the current system where the higher security of the system, then less the rewards.

Players will spread out more, maybe chance a dip in low or null sec for a better payday. More risk, more reward. More players pishing into low and null means more chances for interaction.

CCP can also use the dynamic mission payout to control the isk faucet to help control the printing of isk from PvE activities. Also player populations will move more dynamically throughout space as they search for more opportunities in lesser used systems. Remove the minimum asteroid spawn on server reset, if they are depleting too fast, then players will have to seek out opportunites elsewhere. This also serves to spread the load on the server.

But you have to have a large enough population for this to work. Too few players will mean too few interactions. So lets coddle the noobies a bit in high security before we subject them to the full tomfoolery of eve's more unsavory types.

More players, more targets. But let them become a worthy target first.

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!
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#199 - 2012-08-27 22:29:06 UTC
the only thing I see bringing thousands of new players to EVE would be a live action movie blockbuster. IMAX 3D!

Else, commercials on Sci-Fi channel maybe?
Anslo
Scope Works
#200 - 2012-08-29 12:40:55 UTC
arcca jeth wrote:
the only thing I see bringing thousands of new players to EVE would be a live action movie blockbuster. IMAX 3D!

Else, commercials on Sci-Fi channel maybe?


All of my THIS ^

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