EVE General Discussion

Restrictions were mentioned, including the obvious ones like high sec ganking, and station dweller roles. But really, removing applications for the characters also removes appeal. That leaves "whatever they will be best for," and that's fine.

I'm wondering if anyone else noticed an overarching theme between Seagull and Rise. It had to do with opening features to discussion in F&I, versus releasing them on TQ unannounced.

Seagull mentioned possible cases where changes will reach TQ unannounced and untested. Later, Rise also touched on the topic by saying some issues were not apparent until TQ, despite being on Sisi. He attributed this to a player's isolation on Sisi, which limits the thoroughness of testing.

By the way, player feedback is not as valid as you thought, because you know how to play this game. What's best is un-player feedback, from people (possibly children) who kinda know what EVE is maybe.

Then there's this scary permadeath... thing. Basically the holy grail of things that EVE players could hear from a dev. With other ambiguous changes predicted as unannounced, followed by an explanation why they maybe should be anyway sometimes not put on Sisi at all, there's this.

That convention hall looked pretty big, but so is the elephant Rise just placed in the middle of it. Without so much as a F&I thread.

Makes me wonder what announcements are planned for day 2. How is anyone supposed to follow that?

Also, Rise forgot to say whether the kids had a chance to provide permadeath feedback.

I feel very uncomfortable speaking about these people using their avatar names. It smacks of testifying at an abuse trial using initials instead of names. Or, role playing at a tree-hugger convention. Or, attending a Hell's Angels convention. Or....

It's just weird. Does CCP have any employees that deal with reality?

Oh...the OP. I'm for it, until I'm against it. You can bank on that, but don't quote me on that.

When a concept requires so many restrictions placed on top of it to become functional, one could question the validity of the concept itself.

I too think permadeath is a dumb idea.

someone please gank the person who came up with it. (ingame only of course)

They already trashed it when people started making allowed alt accounts, and then selling ISK for GameTimeCards. The more people can pump RL money into a game to be self sufficient, the worse and more facile it is to actually play the game on a single account, selling or trading, pvping, etc. It's essentially pay2win, especially when CCP then played WITH the people trading GTC for ISK and created PLEX, as well as allowing character trading. It cheapens the entire game. It's like running with cheat codes. It won't help player retention to make the game so easy, but they decided to do all that because they were very hungry for the extra money even though it breaks the entire immersive experience and such of the game.

If they made an Eve Offline as a Single Player game, that was based on the 2004-2006 version of Eve Online, I'd go play that instead. Then things stop getting easier and more dumbed down and more pay2win, because me being the only one playing it, I have to accept the game and the progression "as is" rather than shove RL money at my perceived problems.



They started "doing it wrong" from a gameplay enjoyment perspective when they started "doing it right" from a business perspective by going into allowing alts and alt accounts and then GTC>ISK and finally to PLEX>ISK>Characters.

Imagine, if you will, an Eve Online where everything that happens in game stays in game, and nothing out of game affects it. Where a larger alliance can be taken down by a smaller alliance because they don't have a rich moneybags type paying RL money for Titans. Where you can go solo if you want, but teamwork increases both your own and your corp's profits, because everyone has different skills they bring to the table, instead of just hopping on your alt. Basically, imagine an actual MMO that feels like a single player game immersively, yet is grown and run by real breathing people. And then imagine that things CANT stagnate in nullsec or anywhere else, because the limitations for players allow individuals and groups to have huge effects in game, which legions of expensive alt accounts and throwing RL money into PLEX for power ships can't ruin.

They based these flawed methods of player retention on the idea that once you have a customer, you should try to entice them back as often as possible. I still have an inbox filled with Eve-O junkmail proclaiming all sorts of gifts or rewards if I re-up. Instead of saying "okay, we know that people play a game, and when they find themselves feeling satisfied and content with their goals in game, they quit, just like a single player game" they continually try to produce carrots to keep people interested just lazily enough to churn out another 15$ through PLEX trade or actually buying game time or whatever. Every time I've seen games do this model, the game goes in a downward spiral direction of things getting "easier", people getting "stronger" (e.g. able to do more on their own without interacting with others) and so on. The game gets qualitatively worse while it appears to be getting better to appease the "want it all and right now" crowd that actually isn't interested in playing an MMO (See: carebear tears over freighter ganks).

This permadeath super character shenanigans is another nail in the coffin.



To keep playing if the changes occur is tacit agreement with said changes. Because it's a silent vote for yes with money. Silence is consent, especially if you hand someone money. That's how most businesses and governments work already.

I like the idea of having the option to have permadeath characters.

I mean it is still an option after all, I don't see why people would oppose this, it is not being forced on them.
Or are people worried about player interactions with such permadeath characters?

Personally, I'm for anything that increases the playerbase. For Eve to continue to grow and develop into an even more immersive game, then the truth is that player numbers need to increase radically.

Having said that, I'm not at all sure that this idea will have that effect but if it does then so be it.

Besides... giving a brand new player a 20m sp pvp alt is like giving a five year old a hammer drill. You would have a thousand marks on the wall, none of them where you wanted the hole! I'll take those odds! :-)

Perma Suspect!

I'LL TAKE TEN !!!! :O

Imho, yes, from the perspective of a new or quasi-new player switching some (or all) level 5 requirements to level 4 or similar would go a much longer way than creating throwaway characters.