Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How does this stop you from going to null and taking things way? You don't have to claim sov to run an anomalie or plex.

How much safer?

I understand what you're saying but it needs a quantifier. How much safer does HighSec need to be, in your opinion?

Why the reference to botters? He could have just as easily said, "If NullSec is so kick ass why are so many NullSec line members running missions in HighSec?"

Botters has nothing to do with this.

Also, if I do not respond to posts in a timely manner forgive me, this thread dropped right before I went to work and as much as I like to **** around at work, I do get paid to work so...

Kill them in the face with the Mega!!

Sorry brother, I guess I missed the reference to bots that some dipshit dropped about bots in NullSec. I will go back and look for it.

ED: Sorry Master of the Mega, this is all that I could find.

seeing as that may be who actually knows if subs are new players or just new accounts.. but beyond that CCP regardless what players may think makes this game for profit. if you take all their funds away the game will die within a year. same with every game. fact stands wow is losing players left and right. at the end of last year there were around 7.7 million wow players. that means on 1 year at 7.7 million wow has made more than ccp has in its entire life .. counting only for subs. "side note here the estimation was done assuming eve had 500k players since day 1 which is FAR from true

If you count plexes we will just throw in the actual cost of the game. and blizzard will have blown ccp out of the water again. so trying to say wow sucks or wow is dying may be true to you and some of our 500k+ eve players there are over 7 million that disagree.

And you cannot compare the 2 companies they are in different leagues
CCP
eve online 500k+
dust 500k?
Blizzard
world of warcraft 7million+
star craft 2 - 3 million +
do i really need to post more?

so according to the general population since everyone here loves comparing blizzard vs ccp. blizzard has a far better buisness model CCP could go for another 10 years and still not touch blizzard

because 0.0 lords ordered their peasants to not report?

I like the fact that Eve grows. What I find interesting is that Eve grows despite constant buffs to HighSec and nerfs to NullSec. Obviously, I am speculating but I think this is a good topic of discussion and, at least somewhat, relevant to the OP.

If this trend of growth has occurred despite the increased and slow move towards the "themepark", how can the move to the "themepark" be bad?

I'm not advocating the "themepark". I would just like to get peoples thoughts on it in light of this steady growth in subscriptions.

/me ducks behind a sturdy wall.

Because mission running is also the bread and butter of many newbros, you can't really go from what we have now (0 challenge) to "fight like a seasoned PVPer would." But I do agree that there is room for improvement in this area (I've written it many times) and the simplest change (even if you only tested it on lvl 4s & 5s to start) would be to randomize spawn triggers. Begin by adding an element of unpredictability and then you can add more layers as time goes on. Going from 0 to 100 full throttle is going to break some necks. The current system has one group of players fitting ships for pve and another for pvp. It is the game itself creating a situation where it isn't in the pve'ers best interests to be able to defend themselves well against pvp attacks. This doesn't facilitate good pgc. It incentivizes avoidance of interaction - which is counterproductive imo. Were we to reach a point where pve'ers are actually fit for pvp combat and fighting a player combatant isn't much different than a pve combatant, I expect we'll see more player interaction so I support moves in this direction.



As with suggestion one, this suggestion again seems to paint all players with the same brush. If the majority of npc bounties are really being claimed in null, then (even if your fears over inflation are warranted) this point doesn't qualify as themepark. And you didn't even mention incursions which I think most people would agree are an isk-farming faucet (that does also facilitate cooperation and pgc.) I think incursions are the low-hanging fruit but an entire community of players have sprung up around them now and until they decline in popularity (possibly with assistance) you can't just end those either.



There is no mechanism currently in existence that converts risk-averse players into risk-takers. All you can do is mitigate the risk levels - not the players. Zydrine can be readily mined with but a single jump into low sec (one!) and the vast majority of high sec industrialists purchase it off the market instead. How much more can you incentivize that? So while I do agree that player interaction is paramount to all else as nothing is more important to pgc quality, the same cannot be said of risk. People do not have to be either category to interact - and the interaction is what matters. Different activities like shooting at each other or working together cooperatively probably can be assigned values on how effectively they contribute to pgc but as all of these things are better than zero interaction, the primary goal should be just to get people interacting in some way. It could, but it doesn't have to involve risk or pew for this to occur.




Aside from the venture, which other ships come prepackaged with a bonus to warp core strength? Should I know this? I see this written all the time and it still doesn't make sense. I'm a fan of the venture. There probably hasn't been a ship introduced in the game yet that has gotten more newbros to explore wormholes or try low sec mining. They're not a threat to anyone and their presence is inconsequential. No one is going to lose sov or find all their belts mined because of ventures. So I don't agree with removing the bonus from the venture but if there are other ships with inherent warp bonuses I guess I'd have to look at those. Also, you can't ask to incentivize risk-taking (by mitigating risk one would assume - like with a bonus to warp core strength maybe?) in one breath and then complain about it in the next. Just sayin'.

YK

When it comes to combat pve high sec offers better rewards than null.

I would argue the current state of bots has nothing to do with the difference between blue-sec vs hi-sec mission income but the sheer volume of players in hi-sec vs blue-sec.

Where would you try and hide? In the herd with the other wilderbeast? or alone in blue-sec where any frigrate could tackle and kill you free of concord??

Its less about the isk and all about not getting caught.