These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM Ripard Teg's "Gateway drug" blog
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#81 - 2013-12-21 22:49:14 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Is EVE dieing? No, but...


IMO this post and the blog post it's based on is based purely on fear of the game ( a very much still thriving and profitable game) somehow dying or at least not growing/expanding fast enough for some people's taste.

Add in the (imo irrational) desire for "more players" and the even more irrational "OMG new space games are coming EVe better do something (which of course ignores ALL the other games that came out where people made the EXACT same predictions)and you get a whole bunch of speculation about the future that's likely to be about as accurate as a nostrodomus prediction after he had a few shrooms.

The thing is, this specualtion and fear has gone on for 10 years. I sometimes get the feeling that some people are, well, dissapointed that EVE didn't actually die.

TL;DR, no one ever learns from the past and EVE is fine.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#82 - 2013-12-21 22:56:10 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I already knew that EVE isn't for everyone.

Making it more for everyone automatically detracts from the enjoyment of people who like the game as it exists presently, because those players are a niche group in and of themselves.

This one really made me laugh though:

Quote:
I once described DUST 514 as having the potential of becoming the tail that wagged EVE's dog.


But even he recognizes that DUST has failed.

PC or go home.

But anyway, the TL;DR for people who don't want to read his site's hideous and jarring font colorization:

EVE is dying. Apparently newbies will save it, and we need to pander to and cuddle them so that they stay.


Gee, you might want to have a look at the business model of ALL computer game companies.

Let me try to lay it out for you, since you seem to have some difficulty with real life facts:

See, every game, no matter how good, experiences attrition of subs.
To grow, a company has to attract and retain more subs that they lose.

You with me so far?

So yes, CCP must make the game attractive enough to retain that portion of newbies to keep their cash flow solid.
That kind of thing means curtailing the sociopaths in the game, who delight in driving new players out of the game.
It also means in devoting more resources to teaching new players the game mechanics, plus the meta-game mechanics.

Frankly, I think every new player should automatically be enrolled in Eve University for the first 3 months of the char's life, to give the best start on learning the game.


Case in point about my last post.

it's the sociopaths that keep the game going, because the danger, the chance of losing and gettign screwed, the lying and cheating and all the rest is why you people are playing this game instead of the much more user and player friendly Star Trek Online.

There is a false belief that "if the people I don't like would just go away EVE (and real life) would be great". But it's a foolish belief, a balanced world needs all types, and all types contribute something even when what they are spouting is nonsense. you can see that in this very forum, people complain about "trolls" in GD.....while coming to GD everyday.

EVE has suvived as a rough and tumble game of extremes. Many MANY other games that tried to be new player friendly are dead when EVE isn't.

It's because those other games gave peole what their makers thought their players wanted. EVE gives us what we NEED, an extreme and many times frustrating challenge along with a kick in the pants and a recurring exortation to HTFU.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#83 - 2013-12-22 01:14:36 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
(...)
This is very true.

Its also important to realize that many, I would even say, the majority of MMO players like to play solo. The reason MMO's have instances and group content that is not solo-able is because if they didn't the majority would solo the content rather than group for it and it would crash the economy.

EVE is a very un-solo friendly game, thus the requirement to have alts for virtually everything not directly related to your mains skillset.

I think once SC comes out, if it offers interesting PVE and is more solo friendly, not requiring stupid number of accounts like EVE does, a very large proportion of the EVE PVE and solo community will move to that instead.

Developers ignoring solo and PVE the way there are and allowing 10% of the playerbase exclusive access to a majority of content in EVE is going to backfire on them pretty horribly. Which is possibly the reason they have released things like depots, SOE ships, MTU's and player owned POCO's.


I +1 this whole post.

EVE is a godawful place to be a solo PvE player with limited time, that is, EVE is godawful to 80% of the MMO demographics. And the Hallelujah Plan intends to change that by focusing new content on a tiny minority, not for a expansion or two, but for THREE YEARS.

Even worst, that content is6 the absolutely less likely to atract new players and also is the absolutely most unlikely to be found from the NPE.

And meanwhle the NPE consists of seeing a trailer with avatars, sign in, create a gorgeous avatar, meet it locked alone in a single room with nothing to do and then, oh, go fly a ship and learn how PvE works in a game were PvE sucks.


Yeah, then when you finally try pvp you'll have your arse handed to you on a plate as there are no solo fights let alone 'fair' fights. It's not like other mmo's but I still love it though but I've been disenchanted with it for the last couple of years and don't play as much as I did when eve was beautiful and unbalanced.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2013-12-22 01:20:02 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Is EVE dieing? No, but...


IMO this post and the blog post it's based on is based purely on fear of the game ( a very much still thriving and profitable game) somehow dying or at least not growing/expanding fast enough for some people's taste.

Add in the (imo irrational) desire for "more players" and the even more irrational "OMG new space games are coming EVe better do something (which of course ignores ALL the other games that came out where people made the EXACT same predictions)and you get a whole bunch of speculation about the future that's likely to be about as accurate as a nostrodomus prediction after he had a few shrooms.

The thing is, this specualtion and fear has gone on for 10 years. I sometimes get the feeling that some people are, well, dissapointed that EVE didn't actually die.

TL;DR, no one ever learns from the past and EVE is fine.

This is why, among other things, I say that Ripard Teg really doesn't understand EVE.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-12-22 03:50:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Is EVE dieing? No, but...


IMO this post and the blog post it's based on is based purely on fear of the game ( a very much still thriving and profitable game) somehow dying or at least not growing/expanding fast enough for some people's taste.

Add in the (imo irrational) desire for "more players" and the even more irrational "OMG new space games are coming EVe better do something (which of course ignores ALL the other games that came out where people made the EXACT same predictions)and you get a whole bunch of speculation about the future that's likely to be about as accurate as a nostrodomus prediction after he had a few shrooms.

The thing is, this specualtion and fear has gone on for 10 years. I sometimes get the feeling that some people are, well, dissapointed that EVE didn't actually die.

TL;DR, no one ever learns from the past and EVE is fine.

This is why, among other things, I say that Ripard Teg really doesn't understand EVE.

So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2013-12-22 04:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.

EVE is growing. Why is that not good enough. Is there some inherent reason it should be growing faster?

Nobody said they don't want more people playing EVE. What we want is the right people playing. People who actually contribute to the social aspect of the game. Not people who mine highsec ores with ISBoxer fleets of 15 Hulks, an Orca, and a freighter.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2013-12-22 04:24:48 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.

EVE is growing. Why is that not good enough. Is there some inherent reason it should be growing faster?

Nobody said they don't want more people playing EVE. What we want is the right people playing. People who actually contribute to the social aspect of the game. Not people who mine highsec ores with ISBoxer fleets of 15 Hulks, an Orca, and a freighter.


"right people"!!!

Bigot


~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#88 - 2013-12-22 04:36:46 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.

EVE is growing. Why is that not good enough. Is there some inherent reason it should be growing faster?

Nobody said they don't want more people playing EVE. What we want is the right people playing. People who actually contribute to the social aspect of the game. Not people who mine highsec ores with ISBoxer fleets of 15 Hulks, an Orca, and a freighter.

... oh crap

I think I might be close to having to :frogout: of these eve online

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-12-22 04:38:46 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.

EVE is growing. Why is that not good enough. Is there some inherent reason it should be growing faster?

Nobody said they don't want more people playing EVE. What we want is the right people playing. People who actually contribute to the social aspect of the game. Not people who mine highsec ores with ISBoxer fleets of 15 Hulks, an Orca, and a freighter.
Is there a reason it shouldn't grow faster? To be clear, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is anyone who is willing to play within the rules is inherently bad for the game. In the end it's not just willing interaction that drives the game so why not.

Nor do I think social interaction needs to necessarily be the goal of every player.
Fan Duk
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2013-12-22 04:40:12 UTC
Eve is a game about mining. I mine ore and build ships. Then the NPCs buy them.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#91 - 2013-12-22 04:43:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Is there a reason it shouldn't grow faster? To be clear, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is anyone who is willing to play within the rules is inherently bad for the game. In the end it's not just willing interaction that drives the game so why not.

Nor do I think social interaction needs to necessarily be the goal of every player.

If you abandon your fundamental principles for the sake of more growth, you will find that you will be abandoning the playerbase you worked so hard to build as soon as they realize what's going on.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-12-22 05:02:19 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Is there a reason it shouldn't grow faster? To be clear, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is anyone who is willing to play within the rules is inherently bad for the game. In the end it's not just willing interaction that drives the game so why not.

Nor do I think social interaction needs to necessarily be the goal of every player.

If you abandon your fundamental principles for the sake of more growth, you will find that you will be abandoning the playerbase you worked so hard to build as soon as they realize what's going on.
Improving NPE doesn't necessitate abandoning the core principles of the game. And everyone going out of their way to be socially interactive isn't and doesn't need to be one of those principles since like it or not the players are all interactinng through the actual game mechanics.

So again, so long as a player is willing to play within the rules, including the limits of their chosen interactions, I can't really see them as bad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2013-12-22 06:12:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Improving NPE doesn't necessitate abandoning the core principles of the game. And everyone going out of their way to be socially interactive isn't and doesn't need to be one of those principles since like it or not the players are all interactinng through the actual game mechanics.

So again, so long as a player is willing to play within the rules, including the limits of their chosen interactions, I can't really see them as bad.


NPE is fine now, it is impossible to teach new players everything and you cannot teach them anything about pvp with NPCs. The simple fact is that a lot of people who play MMOs simply cannot handle losing, risk, thinking for yourself and not having instant gratification.
Louis Robichaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-12-22 06:26:56 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

To which I say: Wrong, dude. You're wrong. No amount of easing the NPE (New Player Experience) will beat the handicap of EVE's core design: EVE is about player driven content, and that content consists of killing players until they leave. So the real NPE would be like spawning the new players in a permacamped 0.0 system and tell them to make it to the other side of a gate leading to hisec.

That would be a 100% accurate, true, EVE new player experience. Of course, also would scare away 99.99% of the actual new players.

.


Erm, I'm not sure I agree that the content of EVE consist of killings players (PLAYERS?!? surely you mean spaceships) until the players leave. I do agree that there is something to what you say, but a lot of people play *without* the goal of driving other people to quit. I blow up Blue Republic spaceships all the time. I certainly don't want those players to quit, I want them to stick around so I can explode their ships some more (and they return the favor). Even when RvB goes purple and unites vs a 3rd party, I want us to win, but I have no interest in seeing the players quit.

There is an ugly minority who's main goal in the game is to get tears. It's a problem. We can't talk about that problem however, as they tend to be quite talented trolls, and any attempt to discuss the issue turns into a "HTFU" and "where did the bad guy touch you?" silly fest.

I love that EVE is a dark, dangerous place where explosions and betrayals abound. But we don't need griefers for that to happen. Sure the game is hard and it's difficult to get into it. But some of those people driven away by the reputation (or actions) of this ugly minority could have turned out to be great players and content creators themselves, had they been given a chance to get the hang of things.

I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca
Alduin666 Shikkoken
Doomheim
#95 - 2013-12-22 06:27:05 UTC
No one has said it? Well I guess I have to . . .

Posting in not-so-stealth look at my/my friends blog.

Honor is a fools prize. [I]Glory is of no use to the dead.[/I]

Be a man! Post with your main! ~Vas'Avi Community Manager
Louis Robichaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2013-12-22 06:44:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So in response I must ask, is eve living up to it's potential growth? And is there something inherently wrong with new faces in the game? For a game with so much focus on social interaction it seems counterintuitive to not want to grow the number of separate individuals playing.

EVE is growing. Why is that not good enough. Is there some inherent reason it should be growing faster?

Nobody said they don't want more people playing EVE. What we want is the right people playing. People who actually contribute to the social aspect of the game. Not people who mine highsec ores with ISBoxer fleets of 15 Hulks, an Orca, and a freighter.


Hmm... I can't argue that the number of *subscription* is growing. Not so sure about the number of *players*. I'm not sure that a gazillion alts is good for the game or community. There will always be attrition, and new blood is good no?

I also agree with you that EVE is not for everyone and we don't want to attract the wrong people. And I agree with you that people who contribute to the community are definitely better than antisocial miners who never talk to anyone... But at the same time, if we are going to harp about EVE being a sandbox, if that guy wants to mine by his lonesome... is it a sandbox or isn't it?

I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-12-22 06:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
baltec1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Improving NPE doesn't necessitate abandoning the core principles of the game. And everyone going out of their way to be socially interactive isn't and doesn't need to be one of those principles since like it or not the players are all interactinng through the actual game mechanics.

So again, so long as a player is willing to play within the rules, including the limits of their chosen interactions, I can't really see them as bad.


NPE is fine now, it is impossible to teach new players everything and you cannot teach them anything about pvp with NPCs. The simple fact is that a lot of people who play MMOs simply cannot handle losing, risk, thinking for yourself and not having instant gratification.
That's fine. If that is your answer than it is a lot more on my point than saying we just don't need people because they might be "bad." But recall the NEW isn't just NPC's. It's also the initial social interactions. And if there are things the npe itself can't teach how much should it encourage interaction and how, and can that be an improvement to retaining new players.

Furthermore that can prepare people for the type of loss and risk that can occur here. For some it's not always the loss that drives them out, but the fact that they weren't aware of or prepared for the possibility when it happened.

Overreaching point being that as a business it doesn't make sense for CCP not to look at attracting and retaining new players nor as a player not wanting to have new people to interact with of all types.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2013-12-22 06:53:23 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
"right people"!!!

Bigot



It may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Is there a reason it shouldn't grow faster?

Yes, namely the steps taken to make this happen may not be in the best interest of the game itself.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
To be clear, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is anyone who is willing to play within the rules is inherently bad for the game.

I do.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nor do I think social interaction needs to necessarily be the goal of every player.

Social interaction is both an end and a means to an end, and it's also the dynamic on which this game thrives. I don't have as much of a problem with solo players. I have a problem with players who substitute their armies of alts for actual social interaction. This kind of behavior should be discouraged.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2013-12-22 07:05:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
"right people"!!!

Bigot



It may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Is there a reason it shouldn't grow faster?

Yes, namely the steps taken to make this happen may not be in the best interest of the game itself.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
To be clear, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is anyone who is willing to play within the rules is inherently bad for the game.

I do.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nor do I think social interaction needs to necessarily be the goal of every player.

Social interaction is both an end and a means to an end, and it's also the dynamic on which this game thrives. I don't have as much of a problem with solo players. I have a problem with players who substitute their armies of alts for actual social interaction. This kind of behavior should be discouraged.

Well, this is the only path of growth in the absence of genuine new blood. And if we're as a community going to focus on keeping "bad" players out while considering those who might have stayed with a better initial experience acceptable collateral we should probably get used to it as CCP will continue seeing it as easy cash and incentivizing it.
Obunagawe
#100 - 2013-12-22 07:19:38 UTC
I stand by my belief that the PLEX price is the true indicator of the health of the game. A higher PLEX price is indicative of a general unwillingness to pay for EVE and therefore player discontentment.