These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Sandbox is Becoming a Themepark

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#281 - 2014-02-28 22:01:54 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..




The person who told me that "literally hundreds" of sandbox MMOs have died for every themepark MMO that has died doesn't get to tell anyone to use a calculator.
I showed you how that was clearly true and you then proceeded to ignore the entire post.


You attempted to redefine MMO to mean MUD and GDUs and other such things that are not MMOs. Furthermore, you gave no names, no numbers, no sources, no proof.

And then claimed victory atop a pile of further lies.

Just admit you lied about your "literally hundreds" comment and we can move on.

"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.
hellokittyonline
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
#282 - 2014-02-28 22:02:54 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:
I love market pvp, i love the corp aspect, i love grouping with corp mates for missions, i love small roam pvp, i love the alliance pvp and fw (even though i don't do these they sound awesome.)

I don't love having my billion isk mission ship being blown up when there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't love being horrified to touch anything in high sec for fear of turning suspect.

It's nothing to with social interaction or wanting a single player game it's about having a fun, fair, fighting chance.


Natural Beer, can I call you Natty Light? Benny Ohu has often suggested that PvE ships should be able to fit for PvP without too much impact on their PvE efficiency. I assume by your post that this is something you would agree with. Would I be accurate?


For sure if i felt my ship could pvp effectively enough to at least give me a chance to win then of course. However what ganker is going to pick a fight they could potentially lose?

I used to play a game where pvp was everywhere there was no safety at all and i loved it. However, the pvp was far simpler and players could warp out at any time making it far harder to erase 10 hours of someones life in xp. There was pretty much no penalty to killing someone and the penalties for dieing were really harsh.

I'm not opposed to player vs player in anyway i'm opposed to player vs pylon


Then why are you participating in it? The "ganker" does not make you shoot, that is a decision YOU made. Whining about the possible consequences of your own decision is childish.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#283 - 2014-02-28 22:03:25 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
I want the bounty system removed, but isk still needs to be injected, though relative to the amount of new players and not just at random to give farmers more incentive to play (because more isk means higher prices that they too have to pay thus theirs no real increase in incentive, only a decrease in incentive for new players).


Where is the ISK going to come from if not from bounties?

Follow the rainbow and meet the leprechaun.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
ashley Eoner
#284 - 2014-02-28 22:05:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
firepup82 wrote:
WoW has lost millions of subs in the last two years and every MMO that copies it crashes in less than a month. EVE is the only MMO to do nothing but gro
WoW gained 200k subscribers last year.

Aion didn't try to copy wow and it crashed spectacularly (after making sales records and such). The reason? Because Ncsoft listened to the hardcore crowd and left it a massive grindfest. Who needs game content (THEME PARKS ARE BAD!!!!)? The playerbase will create it!!! Them lazy carebears want to make it easier DON"T!! The only reason the game rebounded was because Ncsoft stopped listening to the small group of hardcores and went about fixing some aspects of the game.

baltec1 wrote:
They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.


Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..

baltec1 wrote:
When it comes to combat pve high sec offers better rewards than null.
You know if your corporation wasn't renting out all those areas and instead you were able to run them you'd make way more in nullsec. Hence the nerfs to nullsec and posts by CCP. You have only your corporation to blame for that.


Eve is nowhere near being a themepark.

I googled "wow subscription graph".

http://www.pcgamesn.com/wow/why-world-warcraft-losing-subscribers-and-how-can-blizzard-fix-it

http://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/

http://www.powerwordgold.net/2013/07/world-of-warcraft-subscribers-2005-2013.html

Those were the top three results. All of them show WoW losing millions of subscribers. 1.8 million lost between Q4 2012 and Q4 2013.

Where's your data from?
From Blizzard and Activision's investor information.

A quick google search will show. Unless of course you go with unreliable data from people guessing like some of your links.

I especially liked the link with the cute paint chart where the guy predicts that wow will be dead in 2016.


BTW this link of yours actually kind of backs my statement.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/

Notice the 200k gain at the end of Q4 2013 which continued into the Q1 of 2014.

Your link also shows 12 million as the peak which also continues to show that the 15 million is bullshit. So a loss of 4.2m subscribers while leaving 7.8m isn't that big of a deal when seen over the course of 3 years. Especially when you consider that some very controversial changes were released. Personally I'm still amazed they didn't lose more.


EDIT : The real test will be when the new expansion is released. If there is a continued loss of players at that point then WoW certainly will be in trouble.

Personally I quit because I didn't like what they were doing to the game for cataclysm. I also didn't feel like spending the money to buy the expansion. I can't imagine I'm not the only one that is tired of buying expansions by now.
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#285 - 2014-02-28 22:06:36 UTC
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#286 - 2014-02-28 22:07:30 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
For sure if i felt my ship could pvp effectively enough to at least give me a chance to win then of course. However what ganker is going to pick a fight they could potentially lose?


I think this is a fair question but not one that I could answer.

Organic Lager wrote:
I used to play a game where pvp was everywhere there was no safety at all and i loved it. However, the pvp was far simpler and players could warp out at any time making it far harder to erase 10 hours of someones life in xp. There was pretty much no penalty to killing someone and the penalties for dieing were really harsh.


Part of the allure of Eve is that losses do mean something. I am not convinced that the OP's idea of removing W-Stabs is sufficiently necessary but at the same time - losses mean something - Eve is real. Big smile

Natty Light wrote:
I'm not opposed to player vs player in anyway i'm opposed to player vs pylon


I think I understand where you're coming from. A PvP Enthusiast, knowing their PvP fitting will succeed over your PvE fitting, is the pain point in the equation.

I am starting to like Benny Ohu's idea more and more.


"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#287 - 2014-02-28 22:11:34 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
From Blizzard and Activision's investor information.

A quick google search will show. Unless of course you go with unreliable data from people guessing like some of your links.

I especially liked the link with the cute paint chart where the guy predicts that wow will be dead in 2016.

You mean this investor information, that quotes:

Quote:
During the quarter, Blizzard’s World of Warcraft remained the No. 1 subscription-based MMORPG in the world, with more than eight million subscribers, although the game saw declines of approximately 1.3 million subscribers, mainly from the East but in the West as well

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Victoria Thorne
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#288 - 2014-02-28 22:11:36 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Natty Light wrote:
I'm not opposed to player vs player in anyway i'm opposed to player vs pylon


I think I understand where you're coming from. A PvP Enthusiast, knowing their PvP fitting will succeed over your PvE fitting, is the pain point in the equation.

I am starting to like Benny Ohu's idea more and more.




+1 There are a few ships that can do that, but not without consequence. (And they are mostly considered horrible PVE ships - I'm looking at you my Legion... Big smile)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#289 - 2014-02-28 22:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
hellokittyonline wrote:

This is quite simply not the case as there is already FAR MORE isk injection then there needs to be, and if there needed to be more I'm SUURE CCP would be ENTIRELY willing to inject it.

I want the bounty system removed, but isk still needs to be injected, though relative to the amount of new players and not just at random to give farmers more incentive to play (because more isk means higher prices that they too have to pay thus there's no real increase in incentive, only a decrease in incentive for new players).
Is there more than there needs to be? Even without new players, older players are constantly increasing their abilities and expanding into deeper and more expensive activities. Economic growth doesn't just benefit those that are new, but also those that are trying to expand. Expasion requiring defeating those already well experienced and entrenched in all areas of the game will only lead to power stagnation that is only able to be broken from within, a prospect that becomes less likely each time it happens. Meanwhile game play for others is limited to waiting for that moment to come and stagnation abounds.

Also, where are you getting your data from? Where has isk injection been conclusively liked to ship prices? Where is the data actually proving that isk is coming in at an rate so high as to be negative? the only people who have that are the ones you accuse of having an agenda, which makes your entire premise speculative at best.

So you would take a system that works and replace it with one that won't based upon a series of assumptions which run contrary to the words of the people who are in a place to validate you. That's not a good idea.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#290 - 2014-02-28 22:14:13 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Your link also shows 12 million as the peak which also continues to show that the 15 million is bullshit. So a loss of 4.2m subscribers while leaving 7.8m isn't that big of a deal when seen over the course of 3 years. Especially when you consider that some very controversial changes were released. Personally I'm still amazed they didn't lose more.

I'm not saying baltec isn't full of exaggerating ****, but WoW is not exactly doing spectacularly either, and that's common knowledge. Losing more than 33% of your subscription base is serious. CCP lost a smaller proportion than that with the Incarna debacle, yet ended up laying off 1/5 of their employees. Granted, CCP doesn't have the built-up wealth of Blizzard, but still.

Not a rosy picture.

What were we talking about again?

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#291 - 2014-02-28 22:15:21 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Your link also shows 12 million as the peak which also continues to show that the 15 million is bullshit. So a loss of 4.2m subscribers while leaving 7.8m isn't that big of a deal when seen over the course of 3 years. Especially when you consider that some very controversial changes were released. Personally I'm still amazed they didn't lose more.

I'm not saying baltec isn't full of exaggerating ****, but WoW is not exactly doing spectacularly either, and that's common knowledge. Losing more than 33% of your subscription base is serious. CCP lost a smaller proportion than that with the Incarna debacle, yet ended up laying off 1/5 of their employees. Granted, CCP doesn't have the built-up wealth of Blizzard, but still.

Not a rosy picture.

What were we talking about again?


This is what happens when you put pandas in your game.

Seriously? ******* pandas?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
ashley Eoner
#292 - 2014-02-28 22:15:40 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
From Blizzard and Activision's investor information.

A quick google search will show. Unless of course you go with unreliable data from people guessing like some of your links.

I especially liked the link with the cute paint chart where the guy predicts that wow will be dead in 2016.

You mean this investor information, that quotes:

Quote:
During the quarter, Blizzard’s World of Warcraft remained the No. 1 subscription-based MMORPG in the world, with more than eight million subscribers, although the game saw declines of approximately 1.3 million subscribers, mainly from the East but in the West as well

Who said WoW didn't lose subscribers in 2012?

I know many developers that wish they only saw a 16% decline in user-base on a 10 year old game that still has a userbase of +7.8m.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#293 - 2014-02-28 22:16:46 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:


For sure if i felt my ship could pvp effectively enough to at least give me a chance to win then of course. However what ganker is going to pick a fight they could potentially lose?



Laughable.

I fly a Navy Apoc when I mission. I also picked up a Typhoon of late (because Amarr being restricted to Em/Them is freaking stupid given the NPC resist profiles).

I have never been ganked while missioning.

Hell I haven't even died to war targets. I mission during a wardec, and I still don't lose my ship.

Fit your ship correctly, fly it correctly, and don't do stupid things, and you will likely never die.

The fact that I even have to tell you this is simply astonishing to me. And the fact that it's the truth is simply disgusting. The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.

Yes, people die in highsec. The vast majority are people who were doing it wrong. You can't tell me, like that liar Hawkeye tries to, that highsec is less safe than anywhere else because pilots whose actions collectively scream "I'm here, shoot me!" die in highsec.

Because the people who are doing it right basically never die.

"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.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#294 - 2014-02-28 22:18:06 UTC
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#295 - 2014-02-28 22:18:54 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

Also because pandas are cute.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2014-02-28 22:19:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.
ashley Eoner
#297 - 2014-02-28 22:19:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Your link also shows 12 million as the peak which also continues to show that the 15 million is bullshit. So a loss of 4.2m subscribers while leaving 7.8m isn't that big of a deal when seen over the course of 3 years. Especially when you consider that some very controversial changes were released. Personally I'm still amazed they didn't lose more.

I'm not saying baltec isn't full of exaggerating ****, but WoW is not exactly doing spectacularly either, and that's common knowledge. Losing more than 33% of your subscription base is serious. CCP lost a smaller proportion than that with the Incarna debacle, yet ended up laying off 1/5 of their employees. Granted, CCP doesn't have the built-up wealth of Blizzard, but still.

Not a rosy picture.

What were we talking about again?
Wow is a game that is over 10 years old and still has over 7.8 subscribers and you say that's not doing spectacular. What in god's name would you consider spectacular then?

You know how WoW hit 12m? Cause of chinese subscribers. You know what happened there? The Chinese government shut the game down for a long period of time. The government also keeps blocking content. Guess what happens then? You lose subscribers. Even if you turn the key back on you're still going to lose subscribers because of the lack of confidence in the game being up for long. I'm not going to devote a section of my life to a game when the government has shut it down once already. That's where a big chunk of the losses came from.


It's a myth that incarna saw a mass exodus. CCP was cutting jobs regardless of what was going on with incarna. The current record for concurrent users online is post incarna.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#298 - 2014-02-28 22:21:10 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

Also because pandas are cute.


Grrr pandas! *shakes fist vigorously

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#299 - 2014-02-28 22:22:01 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.


Trying to avoid dying or trying to avoid the "sandbox"?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2014-02-28 22:22:29 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.


Trying to avoid dying or trying to avoid the "sandbox"?

Trying to avoid dying.