These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Can't believe how many CSM/CCP employees want a theme park

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#241 - 2013-01-17 20:06:23 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
How in the world is this lost on so many of you?


It's not lost on him, he just doesn't want it to be so. He wants Eve to change to suit his personal requirements, and I'm sure him recently being ganked to the tune of a 200 mil mackinaw and 1 billion pod has something to do with it. Never mind the fact that he was AFK mining in a system full of New Order agents and knights.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Tesal
#242 - 2013-01-17 20:09:21 UTC
If they get rid of wardecs, who will be the villains?
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2013-01-17 20:09:52 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:


Quote:
Can't believe how many CSM/CCP employees want a theme park


Shocked

This is news to me, course I haven't seen the CSM minutes nor do I care to read them.

Anyway, I thought they wanted to turn Eve Online into Griefer Online.

Wasn't the WarDec / Crimewatch / Bounty / FW changes supposed to make this game a Free-For-All Shooting Gallery?

No, they weren't. Thanks for your interesting and constructive post though.

lol, lighten up a bit.

Think about it, those mechanics actually do indeed help make this game more of a Free-For-All Shooting Gallery than a Safety Theme Park.


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#244 - 2013-01-17 20:10:59 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
No company succeeds by alienatng their consumer base.

WE are the consumer base. NEW players are wanted, but are not the consumer base.

A drastic change to the game will cause a mass exit of current players. That will never be forgotten, and it will only stick to CCP until the day they close up EVE.


The PvP is not what's keeping EVE from growing.
You grow the game by developing new and engaging content, not by bastardizing what you already have.


And for the reccord, it like ONE dev (solomon, who should have never said the **** he said) and TWO CSM's. The rest of the deves and the CSM were very much against the idea of any drastic change to the high sec war decs, and very openly stated that if you can't defend yourself you should get more friends, not have mechanics designed to protect you.

In fact, Soniclover was very vocal that this was not something that should EVER happen, and that you should never be safe because you're in high sec or be able to exist in your own little world and not by impated by others while having large impacts on them.


PS; And again, this is why there should never have been the ability to form one man corps. People aren't being encouraged to grow, they just want a small guild of familly and friends and to be able to have their own "guild housing".

Before they can fix anything, they need to eliminate the way people are abusing the corporation mechanics. Both NPC and player run.

PPS: The friends and familly corp is prety much the root of the whole "middle ground" thing that was mentioned. People who want to have a small corp, but don't want the war dec and pvp mechanics that go along with it.

It shouldn't even be a topic of discussion within EVE development.



It's worth noting that EVE grew the fastest in the period when PvP was less restricted.

There is a strong correlation between increased hi-sec safety and decreased subs gain.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#245 - 2013-01-17 20:11:19 UTC
There actually is a server where carebears can go and do whatever they want without being allowed to be PvP'd upon without their consent. I mean, it's still possible, but not allowed.

It's called Singularity.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#246 - 2013-01-17 20:13:02 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
There actually is a server where carebears can go and do whatever they want without being allowed to be PvP'd upon without their consent. I mean, it's still possible, but not allowed.

It's called Singularity.

Isn't it Buckingham nowadays?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-01-17 20:15:00 UTC
Here is the reality of EVE. Broken down.

There's ONE 3000 man corp.
There's 100 5 man corps.

Who the hell do you think the 3000 man corp is ward deccing? The 100 5 man corps!

They gave us the ability to form both a 1 man and a 3000 man corp, everyone in high sec is jut forming tiny corps, and they're suprised that all the tiny corps are war decced.



I feel like I'm the only person who sees this.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#248 - 2013-01-17 20:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Let's be realistic here. Back in the day I would gank people all the time in Ultima Online and in fact I would take newbies out in the woods to show them my house only to kill them once we got far enough out of town so they couldn't run and call guards.

Yes that was fun, but it probaly killed subscriptions.

I'll admit I had a blast but I personally probaly got a handful of newbies to quit Ultima Online after stealing all their stuff.

The truth of the matter is that Ultima Online subs eventually went down because of World of Warcraft in which you couldn't PvP on most servers except for designated areas and events.


UO gave players the option to kill wolves in the carebear island where nobody could ever touch them. WoW trumped UO's subscription numbers for other reasons, not "wow i don't get killed in this game as often". I think a minor one was "better graphics, more content, the Blizzard and Warcraft brands" but you know just minor

Captain Tardbar wrote:
Ganking/greifing causes subcription loss and CCP wants higher subscription numbers.


EVE isn't for everyone, period. Players will leave because they get scammed, because they lost their ship in a mission, because they jumped into a low-sec system and got instapopped, because it takes months to train into the Raven that everyone says is ~the best~ for L4s which take a lot of time to grind standings for or because it takes months to train into the Mackinaw that everyone says to train for mining.

If CCP addresses any of that stuff they'll be going down a horrible path. As it turns out, EVE isn't about growing your wallet to maximize your cashout when you leave to whatever the next big themepark MMO is.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#249 - 2013-01-17 20:15:40 UTC
Tesal wrote:
If they get rid of wardecs, who will be the villains?


Initially, the heroic awoxers. Twisted

Then, coming soon to a tranquility near you: shooting a corp mate will now invoke a Concord response. Sad

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#250 - 2013-01-17 20:17:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
It's worth noting that EVE grew the fastest in the period when PvP was less restricted.

There is a strong correlation between increased hi-sec safety and decreased subs gain.
…going towards an extreme (which admittedly is hard to generalise from): the lead-up to the summer of rage and the massive losses it created, was a slow but sure reduction in subs and activity during the late winter and spring. That drop started with the release of Incursions — a PvE-focused expansion that led drew more people back into highsec and provided them with more security measures to protect their ISK farming.
Whitehound
#251 - 2013-01-17 20:18:41 UTC
Andski wrote:
The playerbase as a whole has shifted towards "limit PvP to lowsec and nullsec because hisec is supposed to be perfectly safe." That's the vocal minority who will likely end up getting their way. The game won't grow as a result of hisec being perfectly safe, but carebears' wallets (and thus the size of their cashout) will.

If this happens then it is your very own fault.

I do like some of the things Goons do, but what is the point of going methodically after miners in high-sec or generally exploiting weaknesses in the game mechanics? You keep crossing the line between good ganks and bad ganks, probably because you don't even distinguish in the quality of them. Some of the bad ones appear as if you are having it out for CCP's customers. And what for? All in the name of PvP. You take the game too serious is what I am thinking and you don't always see it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#252 - 2013-01-17 20:20:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:



It's worth noting that EVE grew the fastest in the period when PvP was less restricted.

There is a strong correlation between increased hi-sec safety and decreased subs gain.

Well that's untrue.

The game started to really grow when it stopped being a huge ******* mess. It had nothing at all to do with PvP.
The game has had nothing but slow and steady growth sinse '05 and they have never done a single thing to "restrict" pvp. They did remove things that were overly abusable though.

High sec is no more safe today than it was 7 yers ago. Barges and exhumers are just a little harder to blow up, that is all.


Anyone wanna link the numbers of PvP kills in high sec today as compared to '05. I wasn't here in '03 and '04.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#253 - 2013-01-17 20:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Vaju Enki wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Another studio though that if they just removed more of the PvP, then more people would play.
It didn't work for Origian and EA, it won't work for CCP.

CCP is doing exactly what every other MMO development studio does. Look at what everyone esle is doing, and even though it's not worked for them, it must work for us. Thinking you can be the exception to the rule never works for anyone.


Dear CCP,
If you really want to make "more", if you really want a million subscriber EVE, create NEW content.
Drastic changes have not benefitted any other MMO, it will not benefit you.
Once you make that change, you will never get back what you lose.


Let's be realistic here. Back in the day I would gank people all the time in Ultima Online and in fact I would take newbies out in the woods to show them my house only to kill them once we got far enough out of town so they couldn't run and call guards.

Yes that was fun, but it probaly killed subscriptions.

I'll admit I had a blast but I personally probaly got a handful of newbies to quit Ultima Online after stealing all their stuff.

The truth of the matter is that Ultima Online subs eventually went down because of World of Warcraft in which you couldn't PvP on most servers except for designated areas and events.

I want to also state that even though I say that I also tend to enjoy anti-social behavior and find it funny when things like that happen....

BUT I am being a realist here and stating "does a bear poop in the woods?" when it comes to business models.

If EvE gets and retains more players in hi-sec by removing pvp from hi sec then logically they will do so in order to have a high player base and earn more money for the company.

If EvE ever goes public, the shareholders (which will be most likley large investors instead of individual players) will want a return on their investment and demand that EvE increase their subscription method by any means possible.

What will CCP do? We don't know for sure, but your cries on the forums one way or another will not be considered as much as subscription data returns.

Only a fraction of the player base uses the forums so it is unlikley they make major changes based on what the forums say.

I am just stating what I believe to be true...

Ganking/greifing causes subcription loss and CCP wants higher subscription numbers.

Players don't want to be pooped on and when you gank/grief players you are pooping on them. Eventually with enough poop on their face, they will just quit.

So they'll do whatever they think will increase subscriptions.


People like you keep saying the some old carebear tales, but the truth is EvE Online keeps growing. If they ever cave in to carebear themeparkers , EvE will die.

In a weird way, i really pity your kind, you will never understand the beauty of sandbox mmo-rpg's.


Did you not read where I find greifing ganking/amusing and take part in it?

What I am saying is NOT what CCP should be doing but rather what CCP is PROBALY going to do whether you like it or not.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#254 - 2013-01-17 20:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Whoops double post.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#255 - 2013-01-17 20:23:57 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You keep crossing the line between good ganks and bad ganks, probably because you don't even distinguish in the quality of them.

We don't distinguish, who are you to do so?

Related: how are you going to do so?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#256 - 2013-01-17 20:25:20 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Andski wrote:
The playerbase as a whole has shifted towards "limit PvP to lowsec and nullsec because hisec is supposed to be perfectly safe." That's the vocal minority who will likely end up getting their way. The game won't grow as a result of hisec being perfectly safe, but carebears' wallets (and thus the size of their cashout) will.

If this happens then it is your very own fault.

I do like some of the things Goons do, but what is the point of going methodically after miners in high-sec or generally exploiting weaknesses in the game mechanics? You keep crossing the line between good ganks and bad ganks, probably because you don't even distinguish in the quality of them. Some of the bad ones appear as if you are having it out for CCP's customers. And what for? All in the name of PvP. You take the game too serious is what I am thinking and you don't always see it.

Miners in high sec have economic impacts in null.

Believe it or not, becuse of the wonderful way in which EVE is designed, some people profit from high sec miners getting blown up. It takes very specific things to build an exhumer, that you can't get in high sec.

Things make more sense when you undrstand how the economy is impacted by the various regions, and where things come from.

But you keep demonstrating a complete lack of undertanding how the various regions interact within the eocnomy to ever undrstand why it's good for high sec minrs to get blown up.

You would be better suited to asking some questions as apoosed to makig illinformed statements.
Staten Island
Diversity 101
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#257 - 2013-01-17 20:25:31 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I don't disagree that corps just docking up and waiting it out as being a generally poor result, but a couple of people from CCP/the CSM seemed to have the wrong response to that, rather than asking "how can we encourage a fight or some form of standing up to the aggressor" they were asking "how can we make it possible to just avoid it entirely". I think the ally system was a decent attempt at answering the first question, so it's a shame to see it slipping the other way.


The previous iterations of wardecs (including the laughably broken Dec Shield episode) illustrated one thing: you cannot force people to fight, even in an all-PvP game.

The only situations in which a hisec wardec makes sense is when there is some goal to be achieved: blow up this POS, or stop these people mining in those systems being the obvious goals. This is something that was brought up years ago, but has not been acted upon: having goal-oriented wardecs for such goals as "cause X B ISK damage" or "remove the POS at System Y Moon X".

There is the rare wardec or two where a solo wardeccer will end up blowing up some foolish miners or mission runners.

In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

I think the current wardec system, like Democracy, is not perfect, but at least it's less broken than the other options that have been tried from time to time.


Goal-oriented wardecs do not require complex coding -- rather it requires giving people in highsec something to build and own which can in turn be destroyed. Right now, apart from pos'es there is nothing you can build in highsec and everyone has equal access to the same resources. If CCP wants meaningful wars, they have to allow folk to control access to resources and territory and to be able to build things that are meaningful. Allowing POCOs into highsec would be a good first step it that direction (yields/taxes could be still set to favor the use of low/null). Nerfing NPC stations to make POS'es viable would be another good step.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#258 - 2013-01-17 20:26:58 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You keep crossing the line between good ganks and bad ganks, probably because you don't even distinguish in the quality of them.

We don't distinguish, who are you to do so?

Related: how are you going to do so?


Disagree. A good gank will be next time we catch Whitehound with a billion isk in his head, a bad gank will be when we asplode his empty head. Big smile

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#259 - 2013-01-17 20:29:16 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Disagree. A good gank will be next time we catch Whitehound with a billion isk in his head, a bad gank will be when we asplode his empty head. Big smile

Eh. Good gank either way.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#260 - 2013-01-17 20:31:28 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Here is the reality of EVE. Broken down.

There's ONE 3000 man corp.
There's 100 5 man corps.

Who the hell do you think the 3000 man corp is ward deccing? The 100 5 man corps!

They gave us the ability to form both a 1 man and a 3000 man corp, everyone in high sec is jut forming tiny corps, and they're suprised that all the tiny corps are war decced.



I feel like I'm the only person who sees this.


That 3000 man corp usually isn't deccing anyone. They're generally in nullsec doing whatever it is nullsec dudes do. I can tell you, as someone very involved in the wardec community, that most wardec corps are less than 10 actual dudes and most of them try to keep several hundred characters decced, whether that's a few large corps or many small ones.

There are exceptions, of course, but in the vast majority of cases the agressing corp is much smaller than the defending corp.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity