These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Does WAR make players leave Eve?

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#601 - 2013-11-19 02:54:52 UTC
Quote:
Eve is definitely and very successfully niche.


Precisely. Niche gameplay is key to the survival of EVE. Changing it past what it truly is and what it represents just pisses off the people who liked it the way it was in the first place.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#602 - 2013-11-19 05:19:50 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:

Did you very vocally oppose the increase from 2 million to 50 million? Why do you feel that 50 million is the perfect number?
I don't believe I was playing then, or if I was, I was a mere newbie and as such had no real idea about it.


Actually, Jonah Gravenstein had existed for a year when Inferno came out.

Quote:

As for 50 million being an ideal number, its the current figure, why change it? The cost of a wardec is not the problem, people will indulge in them regardless of cost. The problem is people who make or join corps without knowing about or accepting the consequences of that action. There needs to be something in the NPE or on joining and forming a player corp that explains them.


Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch? As the OP mentioned, the reason to raise it a bit would be to cut down on (notice, no one is saying "to END") knee-jerk, meaningless, "for the lulz" wardecs, which may in turn increase new player retention. That's the theory. How do YOU see a reasonable increase in the minimum wardec cost (say to 100 or 200m) playing out?

Quote:

All pushing the price up will do is put the ability to wage war in the hands of the few, and you don't really want folks like goons(grr™) to be the only people that can afford highsec wardecs because they'd just wardec every corp in highsec, to see it burn, and to watch people like you squeal like stuck pigs about the mess you made, and the rest of us have to live with. Then those of us that got burned and didn't quit, we'd just gank every NPC corp member we see, so that they too can burn, and squeal some more. And thus would Dinsdale become a true prophet, and Mittens the great Satan.


That's some seriously creative slippery slope action right there. Unfortunately, without any evidence to back the assertion, it's a logical fallacy. Same with the false dilemma about having to choose between the price as it is now (50 mil) and so high that only the largest alliance in the game can afford it. If you are so space-poor that you think only goons could afford to pay a 100m or 200m wardec minimum fee, then you're not mining the correct rocks sir.

Quote:

People trying to make Eve something that it's not, will be the death of it. If CCP ever gives them more than some temporary placation and cursory notice, Eve is doomed. Eve doesn't need hundreds of thousands of new players, it needs hundreds, maybe thousands of better new players if it is to survive. Appealing to the greater herd just won't cut it with a niche game, and Eve is definitely and very successfully niche.


That's an interesting theory. I think people who are inflexible and forget how important adaptability is in Eve could just as easily be the death of it. As for how many people Eve needs, that's simple. Eve, like any other MMO, is constantly losing players. It needs new players coming in to at least equal the number of players constantly phasing out. In order to GROW it needs MORE than that coming in....and staying...instead of giving up after the trial. That's just basic business sense.

CCP has nerfed high sec danger many MANY times. In doing so it has, and will continue to, give "those people" more than temporary placation and cursory notice. And yet Eve still prospers.

But if we bump the min wardec cost up a bit, it will all come crumbling down. Yeah, I'm sure it will. Roll

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#603 - 2013-11-19 05:26:46 UTC
Quote:
Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch?


Mostly because if you are asking for a change, it falls on you to justify it, not just say "why not?".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#604 - 2013-11-19 05:36:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Anomaly One
Quote:
I think people who are inflexible and forget how important adaptability is in Eve could just as easily be the death of it.


really? are you serious? you're the one asking for CCP to raise wardec prices so you're basically talking about yourself here.


Quote:
It needs new players coming in to at least equal the number of players constantly phasing out. In order to GROW it needs MORE than that coming in....and staying...instead of giving up after the trial. That's just basic business sense.


And it will not attract those new players if they so much as flee at the sight of a wardec, we don't, EVE doesn't need those kind of players, the ones you're trying to attract are already playing their other games, high sec has enough safety, and enough useless corps in it those that crumble on a wardec are a GOOD thing.


TL;DR how the **** is this thread still alive.

Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#605 - 2013-11-19 05:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch?


Mostly because if you are asking for a change, it falls on you to justify it, not just say "why not?".



As seen below in the full quote, I did offer a justification for it, and so did the OP.

Quote:

Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch? As the OP mentioned, the reason to raise it a bit would be to cut down on (notice, no one is saying "to END") knee-jerk, meaningless, "for the lulz" wardecs, which may in turn increase new player retention. That's the theory. How do YOU see a reasonable increase in the minimum wardec cost (say to 100 or 200m) playing out?


No one seems to have a problem offering up pictures of doom and gloom when we're discussing changes to the wardec system in general terms. Why would you guys want to clam up when discussing specific numbers?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#606 - 2013-11-19 05:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Anomaly One wrote:
Quote:
I think people who are inflexible and forget how important adaptability is in Eve could just as easily be the death of it.


really? are you serious? you're the one asking for CCP to raise wardec prices so you're basically talking about yourself here.


I think anyone who can't HTFU, and instead choose to ragequit in the face of changes that help new players are demonstrating that they are too inflexible to play Eve. Adaptability is a crucial trait when it comes to playing this game. Time and time again CCP changes things up. Those who can cope adapt. Those who cannot QQ.

Quote:
Quote:
It needs new players coming in to at least equal the number of players constantly phasing out. In order to GROW it needs MORE than that coming in....and staying...instead of giving up after the trial. That's just basic business sense.


And it will not attract those new players if they so much as flee at the sight of a wardec, we don't, EVE doesn't need those kind of players....


Huh?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#607 - 2013-11-19 05:52:52 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch?


Mostly because if you are asking for a change, it falls on you to justify it, not just say "why not?".



As seen below in the full quote, I did offer a justification for it, and so did the OP.

Quote:

Why NOT change it? It was increased by 25x in Inferno, and "yet the walls stand." It's been a while since Inferno. Why NOT bump it up a notch? As the OP mentioned, the reason to raise it a bit would be to cut down on (notice, no one is saying "to END") knee-jerk, meaningless, "for the lulz" wardecs, which may in turn increase new player retention. That's the theory. How do YOU see a reasonable increase in the minimum wardec cost (say to 100 or 200m) playing out?


No one seems to have a problem offering up pictures of doom and gloom when we're discussing changes to the wardec system in general terms. Why would you guys want to clam up when discussing specific numbers?



Fair enough, I will answer you.

Your entire premise falls under a few potential arguments. I've already told you that "why not?" is unacceptable.

So, the reason is to cut down on "for the lulz wardecs", yes? Then I would ask you what exactly the problem is with those? Apparently, without cause or evidence, we have decided that wardecs are more responsible for poor player retention than any other factor in EVE? Not the hideous UI, not the (compared to other games) incredible level of complication of game mechanics, not the death penalty, and not the time based skill level?

Even if I accept your premise (and I don't) that wardecs are the primary problem with player retention, I would state that sacrificing player freedom even to a small degree is not worth theoretical retention of theoretical players.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lady Areola Fappington
#608 - 2013-11-19 06:16:03 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:

No one seems to have a problem offering up pictures of doom and gloom when we're discussing changes to the wardec system in general terms. Why would you guys want to clam up when discussing specific numbers?


OK, here's some specifics for you.

CCP has stated that their goal isn't to drag as many people as they can into EVE. In fact, they're on record as saying they enjoy the difficulty and pressure that new players face, as they see it as a way to weed out, and reinforce the community.

How does this apply to the wardec mechanic, you ask? Well, two ways spring to mind. For one, it makes deccing relatively easy. It's not too expensive to be out of reach for beginning corps, yet conversely, it's high enough to keep full on "I'm learning the game" people away from the system. Secondly, the relative cheapness encourages meaningful player interaction. If you start ranging higher, it stops being a "spur of the moment" dumb decision. EVE *WANTS* spur of the moment dumb decisions. Doing things in the heat of the moment generates conflict.

So, now then, we have a war system that is cheap enough for spur of the moment decisions, accessible to people who have had time to learn the basics, yet expensive enough to keep the "I just logged in yesterday" people away. Raising the price higher moves the point of access to older and older corps, doesn't do anything to "protect" younger corps, and starts chipping away at the spontaneous nature of many wardecs.

My final point on this, making a wardec more expensive isn't going to do anything to stop unwilling PVP. Lets say, we make wardecs 1bill a week to maintain. Rather than a dec, people will just start running suicide gank teams, so long as it's cheaper and generates the same kills. Now, according to what some say, suicide ganks are totally unavoidable and way OP. You also hand a ton of power at that point to the attackers. The side willing to gank can spend all the time needed to set things up, with no fear that the defenders will be able to counter. They can hit the biggest, most expensive targets. War decs prevent that in ways, because the defender can perform pre-emtpive strikes on the attacking corp.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#609 - 2013-11-19 06:28:26 UTC
Quote:
I think anyone who can't HTFU, and instead choose to ragequit in the face of changes that help new players are demonstrating that they are too inflexible to play Eve. Adaptability is a crucial trait when it comes to playing this game. Time and time again CCP changes things up. Those who can cope adapt. Those who cannot QQ.


HTFU as in, don't start a corp you can't even protect and run at the first sight of a wardec? like that HTFU? or maybe crying out to CCP to change that is true HTFU!

Quote:
Huh?


you say EVE needs to attract players, like this change would ever help new players who intended to stick with this game either way, I say people who quit at the sight of a wardec shouldn't QQ about it and those are not the kind of players EVE needs to attract , got it?

In fact CCP vision of wardecs were supposed to have MORE consequences and be "permanent-like" instead we got this easy way out of it, wardecs aren't cheap as it is right now and they are less viable and quite useless for most people, except for some, making a corp should be a big deal not something you do it for whimzical fun and complain when you can't maintain it.

I agree that wardecs should be changed but it's the exact opposite of what you're saying since they are pretty trivial depending on who you ask.

Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#610 - 2013-11-19 08:40:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Burning Furry wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
What war decs need is the ability to provoke actual conflict and not just docking up


4 man newbie corp gets war-decced by a 50 man l33t pvp corp for funsies.

Tell me.....what else can be done bar docking up? Given that i'm not a sadomasochist?


I would also like to point out that when 1 person decs your corp none of you log in. So in affect even when you outnumber somebody you still stay docked or logged off. So it does not matter either way around your opinion is really irrelevant.

People complaining about being outnumbered in war will also complain if they are at war with 1 person. They will always try to justify why it should change there but reality they actually don't want it in EVE at all.

Might I suggest X?

Well you did log in yesterday but for a few minutes.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Dangirdas Bachir
Fixers Corporation
Commonwealth Vanguard
#611 - 2013-11-19 08:46:40 UTC
Without war EVE can't exist.

EVE EVE STARGALACTIC CITY B I T C H
Amber Kurvora
#612 - 2013-11-19 08:50:36 UTC
Dangirdas Bachir wrote:
Without war EVE can't exist.



It could, but it'd be pretty damned boring.

It's not so much war that drive people away, as the harshness of the in-game attitude of people being fair game from the moment they step in. Plus people might actually join with the dream of building something great, and then find the game mechanics don't allow for that to happen.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#613 - 2013-11-19 09:09:22 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Wars are fine. The problem is the people who believe (wrongly) that they should be allowed to mine (or whatever) in complete peace and without any outside interaction (ganking, wars, whatever).


Blaming customers for their expectations, and losing them as a result, is bad for business.

If I was CCP, I would attempt to protect those players a bit more effectively than they currently are.

no.

the BASIC mechanic of the game involves such interactions, and protecting the already overprotected carebears lead to CCP dumbing eve down more and more.

and we don't need this, look at what they did to exploration "because it was too hard for the carebears"....or the "safety" mechanism....

to play eve, you have to be cut for it, it is not for everyone, its "harsh & cold" all over the place.

there is already a relative safe area, called highsec, it doesn't mean you are 100% safe, but provided you have an iq > 2, you are

when you get wardec'd, be smart, try to fight back, i assure you will learn A LOT.

or deny the attacker any kills, trust me they won't pay for a 2nd week if they had almost nothing the first week.....

there are many ways to win a war, by the guns, or by the mind....it is up to you to choose your path.

if a corp dec you several time in a row (u pissed em off?) maybe try the meta game, diplo etc....

or hire mercs to go after them....or their alts corp which is most surely in charge of their logistic (attrition is proven effective throughout history)

or you could go guerilla on them, hunt them, wait for one to be alone and kill him with your 2-3-10 corpmates.....

there might be many other possibilitys, it's up to you to figure out how to deal with it.
ArchenTheGreat
Interstellar Clone Transport
#614 - 2013-11-19 09:36:23 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Velicitia wrote:


It's the same bogus argument that the *IAA uses -- "anyone who downloads [movie|song] represents a lost sale of that [movie|song]".


This is actually a patently true statement. Such a process involves absolutely no sale or further monetary compensation towards the artist, and, sorry, that point cannot even be argued.



Wrong. If you can get Bentley for free doesn't mean you would buy it for million dollars. I t was proven many times that pirates BUY more. Digital content economy is completely different from material content economy. Some people just don't get it yet. All you can really sell in digital days is service not content. Content (because it can be copied infinite time) is basically free. You have to compete with convenience and usability of your service. And than people will come and pay for your free content.
Arji Otsito
For the Love of Ore
#615 - 2013-11-19 09:42:56 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
CCP Eterne wrote:
I have cleaned up the beginning of this thread. I've called for further moderation from CCL.


Calling for back up?

Why? we are doing just fine, let us sort it out, go fix lag or something.

One like is not enough
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#616 - 2013-11-19 11:06:07 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
J'Poll wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
war doesn't make me leave. boredom makes me leave. I'm at the point right now where I can fly all sub-cap ships. The only way for me to go up is to jump into caps. and caps bore me to death.

actually all of eve bores me. I love pve more than pvp and being forced into pvp by literally everything isn't any fun.

I like the idea of eve, but not the execution.


A PvE player being bored in a PvP game.
....


Eve is a PVE and PVP game. I offer as proof of this the rather large amount of PVE content. Hundreds of missions, Incursions, Mining, Exploration, etc. Thousands of players spend thousands of hours exploring this content. Your choice of ignoring this content, and choosing to only PVP in ships, does not make it a PVP-only game.


Missions = pure PvE.

Incursions = You likely run against another fleet for the LP. PvE with PvP background

Mining = miners race about who can mine the rocks. PvE with PvP background

Exploration = you fight to be the first to discover the signature....pve with PvP background


And of course, hitting the undock button....you are now part of the PvP playground that is EVE

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#617 - 2013-11-19 11:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
Princess Bride wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:

Eve is a PVE and PVP game. I offer as proof of this the rather large amount of PVE content. Hundreds of missions, Incursions, Mining, Exploration, etc. Thousands of players spend thousands of hours exploring this content. Your choice of ignoring this content, and choosing to only PVP in ships, does not make it a PVP-only game.


No one is ignoring content. But PvP underlies everything else in EVE. A game that truly has a distinction between PvP and PvE doesn't all PvP to intrude. You can see this clearly in games that have "PvP" areas and where there is no non-consensual PvP outside of those areas.

Put another why, players CAN be exposed to PvE in EVE, but everyone IS subject to PvP in EVE, even if they don't "choose" it. Even in high sec unless docked. And even then if they trade.

On a funny side note, Incursions kind of turned EVE into more of a Non-Consensual PvE game was well in low sec and null sec because the incursion NPCs will kill you lol. There have always been rats appearing on gates in null and low, but now they have teeth if the constellation is under an incursion.


I understand the point you are making, I truly do. I also agree with pretty much everything you have stated. However, I disagree with the implication that being a PVE-focused player on Eve is "doing it wrong". My feeling is that a player who is most interested in the PVE content is still "an Eve player". Such a player is entitled to express their opinion, even if that opinion can be paraphrased as, "I like to PVE. I wish people would just leave me alone to play the game as I like to play the game." I don't see anything wrong with that sentiment, and I understand where they are coming from. The reality is, of course, that these people will probably, at some point, be confronted with PVP of some kind. While the philosophy of Eve is to allow this to happen, CCP has taken quite a few steps to throttle this kind of activity to an exceptional level. Eve players who have no interest in PVP are likely to only experience PVP in a small doses, and I believe this policy does help with new player retention. Sure, these players will never be "100% safe" in Eve and demanding 100% safety in Eve is futile. Good. If that wish was granted, I imagine it would make Eve far more boring.

However, I think a case can be made for how "integral" PVE is to Eve as well. Pretty much every single Eve player was introduced to basic game mechanics through PVE. The tutorial missions, followed by mission running for NPC corps, are invaluable in their teaching role, at least for most players. It's where people learn the UI, fitting basics, ship movement, etc. Unless you are joining under the tutelage of other players, you will likely learn the basics of Eve in missions. People who rant and rave about "PVE Carebears", insult other Eve players for their choice of play-style, and demand that high sec and low sec be replaced with a 100% Nullsec environment have no more validity than a recently ganked miner demanding that high sec be made "100% safe" for them. Considering how many Eve players started with the PVE content, and the number of players who do nothing but PVE (consensually), I would bet that the number of players who have never experienced Eve PVP is larger than the number who have never experienced Eve PVE.

Also, yeah, I had to laugh when I first heard about Incursion rats camping gates in Null and "nonconsensual PVEing" nullbears to death. 10 points to CCP for the irony there.

Eve is a nice balance of PVE and PVP.


I never claimed that a PvE player is not an EVE player and that they are playing the game wrong.

You are playing the game wrong if you play it in a way that is boring. It means you should play it differently so that you have fun playing it.

And you are playing the wrong game if you expect the EVE/CCP/all players should adapt to your game style. It's the opposite, you should adapt to the game. In EVE, any playstyle CAN survive, but you have to find the way. If you dont like wardecs at all and want as much peace as possible, dont expect that a player corp (specially a very small one) can offer that, staying in NPC corp might be better.

And you think that null-sec equels NO PvE content...which is WRONG. A lot of PvE activities in nullsec to be done. And if you do it smart....its actually a lot safer too.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#618 - 2013-11-19 11:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
Aid Bliss wrote:
Very interesting thread. I'm a new player, focusing on pve and i imagine i will be for quite some time to come because right now it gives me time to become acquainted with, the notoriously steep, learning curve and being a bit of a lore geek i currently find checking out the npc corps and mission running quite interesting.
When it comes to pvp the question that most occurs to me is 'what's the point?'. Now i realise that might provoke some rather strong reactions but i certainly don't mean it in a trolling way but rather a devil's advocate way.
Ultimatly what's the point of these massive fleet battles us new players hear about? what does it really change within the eve universe?
Fleet A beats the crap outta fleet B at the arse end of the map and what does it really matter? Does it not really just come down to who has the biggest e-peen? Doesn't that seem kinda hollow?
For players actions to really effect the eve universe in any meaningful way then shouldn't some pvp content have a negligible effect on pve content? Would not more deeper, detailed pve content and more meaningful pvp content and also a melding of the two, benefit the game as a whole?


Those big fleets are usually in SOV nullsec. Where player alliance control the systems. So those fights are over control of space and do impact EVE. For instance due to Cartel forming on moon minerals etc.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Bel Tika
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#619 - 2013-11-19 11:19:08 UTC
The thought of war brought me to eve, in all its glorious underhanded conniving sleazy backhanded treacherous ways Lol
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#620 - 2013-11-19 11:24:57 UTC
Toshiro Ozuwara wrote:
Aid Bliss wrote:
When it comes to pvp the question that most occurs to me is 'what's the point?'. Now i realise that might provoke some rather strong reactions but i certainly don't mean it in a trolling way but rather a devil's advocate way.
Ultimatly what's the point of these massive fleet battles us new players hear about? what does it really change within the eve universe?

It changes who controls which resources. It creates a ton of demand for ships and ammo, sov structures. It breaks down and builds new supply lines.

It rewards winners and punishes losers.

Aid Bliss wrote:
Fleet A beats the crap outta fleet B at the arse end of the map and what does it really matter? Does it not really just come down to who has the biggest e-peen? Doesn't that seem kinda hollow?

More hollow than running repetitive scripted missions in hisec?

Aid Bliss wrote:
For players actions to really effect the eve universe in any meaningful way then shouldn't some pvp content have a negligible effect on pve content? Would not more deeper, detailed pve content and more meaningful pvp content and also a melding of the two, benefit the game as a whole?

That is exactly what happens, but you need to leave hisec to see it.


This above.


Dont judge about something you havent done yourself (yet).


Without the PvP...all the highsec carebears would be broke in couple of weeks.


Ever thought who is buying up all the ships/modules/ammo the indy people build or the missions runners supply from the LP store.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club