These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why 500k?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#161 - 2013-05-08 22:35:10 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

Again, we see you focusing on the PvP aspect of EVE, which is only ONE aspect of a multi-facited game.

EVE is not ONLY a PvP game. EvE is as much about working together, to harvest resources, to build things, as it is a game about PvP.

My point is that to enjoy one aspect, you need not enjoy all aspects.


And again this points to your problem. you choose to see what you want rather than whats there. you choose to see things as fragmented parts rather than a whole.

PVP (conflict, not jsut pew pew) and interaction is the core, bottom, base of the game. One of the ways interaction is expressed in the game is that no space is totally safe and therefore every single EVE player is subject to destruction in space.

its not the only thing to the game and I've never said it was (and the fact that you keep intentionally misrepresenting what I say points to you inability to be honest). But non-consensual pvp is a pillar upon which EVE is built. Making even a SINGLEsolar system "totally safe" (ie no suicide ganking or other form on force pvp) goes against the established vision and spirit of EVE.

You can lie all you want and say "I'm just asking", but your actions speak louder than words. By saying you don't think removing an aspect of non-consensual pvp in a game that FROM CONCEPTION has featured non-consensual pvp along with a harsh "death penalty" , you demonstrate that you simply don't like the core spirit of EVE online. It would be no different from going to swim everyday while hating the wet aspect of water.
Rarize Urkan
EVE Corporation 98582134
#162 - 2013-05-09 13:01:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
you simply don't like the core spirit of EVE online


That is unamerican and unpatriotic alltogether.

Dei tuuk ar jobs!!!
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#163 - 2013-05-09 13:45:14 UTC
Rarize Urkan wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
you simply don't like the core spirit of EVE online


That is unamerican and unpatriotic alltogether.

Dei tuuk ar jobs!!!


dey derk ur derb!!!!
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#164 - 2013-05-09 13:49:19 UTC
paying accounts + china + dust 514

as to alts: CCP has no way of knowing if 5 accounts from one IP is 5 roomates, or 1 player with 5 accounts. It also doesn't really make a lick of differance as far as the bottom line is concerned.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#165 - 2013-05-09 13:57:33 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
paying accounts + china + dust 514
Dust isn't included in the EVE numbers.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#166 - 2013-05-09 14:00:48 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
LHA Tarawa wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So why do you post in every single gank thread about how bad ganking is and that we should be hammered into the ground so hard CCP mightas well remove the ability to pirate in high sec space?


Not sure I do.


Having seen you "particpate" in a number of New Order-related threads I can safely say yes, you really do.

LHA Tarawa wrote:
I'm far more concerned with other things that effect high sec carebears like me. Specifically, local NPC corps, CONCORD, sec standings, and mechanics like those that allow me to escape war decs and keep suicide ganking to a minimum.

In short, i like the high sec mechanics exactly as they are.


What you, and others like you, want is perfect safety in highsec and no unwanted interaction of any kind, while wanting to be able to affect others.

Anyway, why is everyone so concerned about subscription / player numbers? Surely that's for the bean counters at CCP to worry about? As long as the market is stocked, there's fleets to join, targets to shoot, slaves to haul my wares around for me and stuff like that, what does it matter? Somehow I doubt the demise of Eve is imminent, although if anyone disagrees I'll happily shelter their stuffs until the servers shut down.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#167 - 2013-05-09 14:18:54 UTC
What a source of frustration those ever-growing subs must be for those people who loudly declaim the immanent death of EVE if CCP doesn't radically alter the structure of the game to suit their selfish needs.

There's no way to make American football a suitable sport for haemophiliacs. There's no way to make EVE a suitable game for people who don't like the possibility of loss.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#168 - 2013-05-09 14:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
The more this type of players cry, the more EvE Online grows.

Some important points:
- there is no such thing as non-consensual pvp in EvE Online, you make it consensual when you login.
- safezones kill sandbox mmo-rpg's, trammel killed the great Ultima Online.

The Tears Must Flow
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#169 - 2013-05-09 14:22:40 UTC
admiral root wrote:

Anyway, why is everyone so concerned about subscription / player numbers? Surely that's for the bean counters at CCP to worry about? As long as the market is stocked, there's fleets to join, targets to shoot, slaves to haul my wares around for me and stuff like that, what does it matter? Somehow I doubt the demise of Eve is imminent, although if anyone disagrees I'll happily shelter their stuffs until the servers shut down.


Everyone is different so I think there are a number of (illogical) paths to "EVE is dying and needs moar subs" thinking of some people.

Some of them may dislike the EVE community and think that if CCP changes the game, more people like them will play and overcome the "D-Bag/A-hole" crowd. Yelling "more subs" is their way of asking for Back up against the meanies lol.

Some of them might be fearful that EVE will die and all of their hard won in game assets will cease to exist when the game closes.

Some of them are envious of "bigger MMOs" and think that EVE should have 9 million subs so they can tell all their nerd friends they play EVE and not get the "WTF is an EVE" question lol.

The rest of them are just "cup half empty" entitled whiners who think that more subs (ie more money for ccp) will spur the game maker to make more stuff for the game, because an MMO with 7000 solar systems and uncountable ways to interact with other people just ain't enough for them.


No matter what angle they come from, the "EVE is Dying" theory comes from a place of deep fear and/or ignorance. The game has literally been dying since the day after launch.

And yet, not only still exists, but is bigger and stronger than ever. This fact ironically means that EVE isn't just the best spaceship game ever, it's the best Zombie MMO ever made Big smile.
Xavier Liche
ACME Mineral and Gas
#170 - 2013-05-09 14:25:17 UTC
Awlton Stueen wrote:
I think there are about ~150-200k players who log in on a regular basis, my numbers come from my brain and have no reliable source, but if there are 500k accounts, we can say that a big bunch of them is inactive or double / triple...account.

We constantly have 25-50k players online, I myself have 4 accounts but I usually only use one at a time, so I don't think more than 20 to 30% of them are dual accounts. Which left us with roughly 30k players online. Consider that a few of them play 23/7, but the majority are normal gamer, and only log in for a couple of hours, and not every day.

I'm sure EVE had 25k players back in 2003, but times have changed man.


This seems about right to me, I have 5 accounts, not open atm, but even when I had them all open I mostly played 1 at a time, sometimes 2.

I can barely keep 1 ship from being blown up, much less 2 at the same time Oops
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#171 - 2013-05-09 14:32:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What a source of frustration those ever-growing subs must be for those people who loudly declaim the immanent death of EVE if CCP doesn't radically alter the structure of the game to suit their selfish needs.


You would think so, but the people convinced that EVE would be so much better if it wasn't EVE are also the people who are VERY good at seeing only that which agrees with what they believe.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2013-05-09 16:22:24 UTC
admiral root wrote:

What you, and others like you, want is perfect safety in highsec and no unwanted interaction of any kind, while wanting to be able to affect others.


No, I do not want to remove unwanted interaction, and certainly not "of any kind".

Yes, I don't want others to be able to prevent me from playing the game the way I enjoy playing it. If your primary goal in playing EVE is to ruin my day, then it is my goal to ruin your day by making sure you don't get to ruin mine. Which the current game mechanics permit. This is why I am usually arguing against change, not for.

I've never argued suicide ganking should be removed. I do like that CCP has made game mechanics that ensure it stays to a minimal level.



admiral root wrote:

Anyway, why is everyone so concerned about subscription / player numbers? Surely that's for the bean counters at CCP to worry about?


The answer is, they DO worry about that. So, within the context of any proposed change, you have to think about how it will effect subscription rates.

If your idea is "Let's remove NPC corps", then the probability of that idea being implemented is virtually nil. The result would be that you could war dec every high sec carebear, none of them could go out and do anything, and then they'd all quit the game, CRUSHING CCP's income stream..

ANY proposed change HAS to take into consideration, that change's effect on subscriptions.


admiral root wrote:

Somehow I doubt the demise of Eve is imminent, although if anyone disagrees I'll happily shelter their stuffs until the servers shut down.


I agree. EVE is going great. I think this, mostly, because I'm convinced that CCP will continue to ignore all the calls to return EVE to being this harsh, cruel place where no one can undock without a high probability of their ship going boom.

CCP is not going to remove CONCORD, is not going to remove NPC corps, is not going to make high sec ganking more profitable, is not going to allow the predators to drive out the carebears... therefore, EVE is not going to die.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2013-05-09 16:28:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What a source of frustration those ever-growing subs must be for those people who loudly declaim the immanent death of EVE if CCP doesn't radically alter the structure of the game to suit their selfish needs.

There's no way to make American football a suitable sport for haemophiliacs. There's no way to make EVE a suitable game for people who don't like the possibility of loss.



Yes. It must be horridly frustrating to those that want local removed, that want NC corps removed, that want CONCORD nerfed, that want exhumer tank buffs removed, that want suicide ganking to be easier, that want L4s removed from high sec, that want high sec nerfed hard, that want to try to convert carebears into easy targets.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2013-05-09 16:31:18 UTC
Xavier Liche wrote:

I can barely keep 1 ship from being blown up, much less 2 at the same time Oops


I have 4 active accounts and play all 4 of them all the time, with no trouble preventing them from going boom.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#175 - 2013-05-09 16:35:39 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
What a source of frustration those ever-growing subs must be for those people who loudly declaim the immanent death of EVE if CCP doesn't radically alter the structure of the game to suit their selfish needs.

There's no way to make American football a suitable sport for haemophiliacs. There's no way to make EVE a suitable game for people who don't like the possibility of loss.



Yes. It must be horridly frustrating to those that want local removed, that want NC corps removed, that want CONCORD nerfed, that want exhumer tank buffs removed, that want suicide ganking to be easier, that want L4s removed from high sec, that want high sec nerfed hard, that want to try to convert carebears into easy targets.



You seem to think that I want all of those things, rather than just a couple.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2013-05-09 16:43:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

You seem to think that I want all of those things, rather than just a couple.


I could not care less what you do or do not want. If what you want would make people like me quit playing, then CCP isn't going to do it. It doesn't matter how much you or the CSM demand it.

I know that CCP is not going to shoot themselves in the head by allowing these bad ideas to drive the carebears out of the game.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#177 - 2013-05-09 17:53:56 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

You seem to think that I want all of those things, rather than just a couple.


I could not care less what you do or do not want. If what you want would make people like me quit playing, then CCP isn't going to do it. It doesn't matter how much you or the CSM demand it.


How much do you care if what you want would make people like me quit playing?

If the difference is irreconcilable, which of us do you think CCP will pick, and why?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#178 - 2013-05-09 18:02:07 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

You seem to think that I want all of those things, rather than just a couple.


I could not care less what you do or do not want. If what you want would make people like me quit playing, then CCP isn't going to do it. It doesn't matter how much you or the CSM demand it.

I know that CCP is not going to shoot themselves in the head by allowing these bad ideas to drive the carebears out of the game.





Well they are nerfing the macks tank...
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-05-09 19:05:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

How much do you care if what you want would make people like me quit playing?

If the difference is irreconcilable, which of us do you think CCP will pick, and why?


EVE provides different areas of the game, that allows for different play styles.

If for you, the goal of the game is to ruin someone's day through the hostile exchange of ammo in space, then CCP offers low and null sec space to accommodate your play style. It offers war decs for you to engage other like minded players in high sec. It offers duels. It offers suspect tagging. Heck, the game even allows you to suicide gank, for a price.


And, for me, the game also allows ample opportunity to play the way I want to. By staying in high sec, not undocking during war, dropping to NPC corp if a war persists, flying well tanked ships, avoiding systems that have lots of ganks, watching local, not transporting expensive cargo in a stupid manor (learned that the hard way), etc. I can play the game the way I want, minimizing the opportunity of others to ruin my day.


I see no reason that the game can not continue to cater to both play styles. I have NO desire to limit your ability to engage in combat with other players of a like mind.

I do not understand this obsession that so many PvPers have with driving players like me out of the game of EVE.

Let's say that half the players that are currently in high sec unsub the game. Other than bankrupting CCP, how does that improve EVE?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#180 - 2013-05-09 19:13:44 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

How much do you care if what you want would make people like me quit playing?

If the difference is irreconcilable, which of us do you think CCP will pick, and why?


EVE provides different areas of the game, that allows for different play styles.

If for you, the goal of the game is to ruin someone's day through the hostile exchange of ammo in space, then CCP offers low and null sec space to accommodate your play style. It offers war decs for you to engage other like minded players in high sec. It offers duels. It offers suspect tagging. Heck, the game even allows you to suicide gank, for a price.


And, for me, the game also allows ample opportunity to play the way I want to. By staying in high sec, not undocking during war, dropping to NPC corp if a war persists, flying well tanked ships, avoiding systems that have lots of ganks, watching local, not transporting expensive cargo in a stupid manor (learned that the hard way), etc. I can play the game the way I want, minimizing the opportunity of others to ruin my day.


I see no reason that the game can not continue to cater to both play styles. I have NO desire to limit your ability to engage in combat with other players of a like mind.

I do not understand this obsession that so many PvPers have with driving players like me out of the game of EVE.

Let's say that half the players that are currently in high sec unsub the game. Other than bankrupting CCP, how does that improve EVE?


To bad EVe has never been any of this. Eve doesn't have "sections" for activities, it has EVE. It does not matter if someone is of "like mind to you", it matters whether you are in space or not (because NOT being is space is the only 100% protection of the game.

When some Confederation of xxPizza guys killed my rattign ship in a haven, i never once thought "hey, they should have had to ask my permission 1st.

When my hauler got gank in high sec (i didn't know any better back then and was moving almost a bil in LP store bought implants and a freaking itty 1), i was mad, but I knew it was all a part of the game. i simply learned to do better.

Your perception and vision of the game is terrible, EVE is one place, not 4 and the same rules apply everywhere (only difference is high sec and concord).