These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Any new info about EVA ?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#61 - 2015-01-05 18:55:24 UTC
Hey look it's this thread again.

So many still stuck in the denial phase of grief.






☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Solecist Project
#62 - 2015-01-05 19:02:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
I have no idea how to put this chart into perspective.
I understand what is written, but I fail to see your point.

We have all of these in EVE with more and more from top to bottom.


TL;DR, Self Actualizes and innovators are better in game companions and opponents than hordes of esteem seekers and Vainglorious image strivers that you find in more main stream games would be. We are better off without them.

The "eve would be great if it had more people playing it (and avatar gameplay is the key to more people)" are just hippies who think people are naturally 'good' and won't crap up the place with their drum circles and lack of hygiene lol.

Well...

I can assure you that I belong to the top two of your chart ...
... while actually being a horrible person who doesn't get along with most people.

Plot twist: Most people are on the bottom of this chart and I can't get along with them for a good reason.

I agreed with you before that anyway. Even though most people seem to think there's a conflict
of interest here, considering MY BOOBEES OMG AREN'T THEY LOOKING AWESOME??? :D
combined with my complete lack of interest of WiS.


An increase in the amount of people in any entity
always and absolutely leads to a decrease of quality.

That's not just common sense ... it's observable reality.



And we have to consider the target audience as well.
Lot's of avatar based games out there.
The broad audience is mostly alike.


Vermin.



I'm for WiS only ever under the condition that I can dock up at the station of a shittalker,
walk up to him, kick his candy ass and shoot him into the face,
which will lead to him ending his subscription.

I would do it again either until he realises that actions have consequences and that,
unlike in IRL, he can not hide his sorry, worthless ass behind a screen or the police ...
... or until he gives up and leaves.


I am not the only one who thinks this way ... I am absolutely sure about that.


And the best part is ...
... that nothing of value would be lost.



As this would never, ever be allowed within game mechanics ...
... and thus no justice can be brought upon those who believe they have *any rights* ...
... WiS ain't ever gonna happen.


Anyone of you who reads this and believes that he has any rights just because he exist ...
... needs to be reminded that rights are granted, but no one is born with them.

Rights can be removed by those who are in power and no amount of words will change that.

Might makes Right.




As long as we lack ways to deal with the scum of our genepool ...
... WiS would and will always and forever be a stillborn ...
... because those who are able to raise their voices through actions ...

... will make sure it's not going to happen.

Will make sure that those it attracts will leave sooner, rather than later.


I know that not ALL of them are like this.
Not all of them are these kind of sad escapists.
Of course they aren't!


Sadly, though, we live in a reality where the majority of people
who play such videogames are not doing anyone any good,
aren't honest, are self entitled and only ever care about themselves.



An increase in the amount of players through WiS,
would lead to a massive loss of quality.


That's not just common sense ... it's observable reality.




*kinks*



*walks off*

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#63 - 2015-01-05 19:07:29 UTC
Erica Dusette wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE should be Subaru, not Ford.

Wow, polls and Subarus? Lol

Nah, EVE should be a Holden.

The whole Subaru thing really died after the '90s tbh.


Those guys are having WAY too much fun in that video. I'ma call the police on them.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#64 - 2015-01-05 19:15:11 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Hey look it's this thread again.

So many still stuck in the denial phase of grief.








You can pretty much feel the angst in a WiS fans post when they post (for example lol). They just can't let it go.

Once upon a time i was fairly itching for atmospheric flight. CCP put out that demo, but later backed off it and for a short time I was disappointed, but in no way did that last YEARS like it is with the WiS people.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#65 - 2015-01-05 20:48:05 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


EVE is a great game, but it's only a fraction of how great it would have been with avatar gameplay.


Bullpucky.

How is somehow having an avatar that can walk around and touch things (aka the thing we can all do in real life simply by standing up) somehow supposed to enhance a game about spaceships? (...)



By making it a game that is about something else than just spaceships.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#66 - 2015-01-05 20:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Crumplecorn
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How is somehow having an avatar that can walk around and touch things (aka the thing we can all do in real life simply by standing up) somehow supposed to enhance a game about spaceships? (...)
By making it a game that is about something else than just spaceships.
Ha ha, oh wow. By this logic you could add a minecraft clone into EVE and it would enhance the game.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#67 - 2015-01-05 20:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


EVE is a great game, but it's only a fraction of how great it would have been with avatar gameplay.


Bullpucky.

How is somehow having an avatar that can walk around and touch things (aka the thing we can all do in real life simply by standing up) somehow supposed to enhance a game about spaceships? (...)



By making it a game that is about something else than just spaceships.


If spaceships aren't enough for you, why choose to play a game focused on spaceships alone (as the playable 'avatars') when other space games that have avatar play exists (the aforementioned SW and ST MMOs) with at least 1 more (Star Citizen) coming? You know that plenty of us like our spaceship (that is really a submarine) focused game right?

On a related note I can't wait for Star Citizen, not just because I gave them some change and want to do a bit more than laggy dogfight and walk around an empty hanger, but also so I can add it to the list of games that were supposed to kill EVE but didn't (damn if that list isn't getting long as hell), the latest of course being Elite: Dangerous lol.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#68 - 2015-01-05 20:58:30 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How is somehow having an avatar that can walk around and touch things (aka the thing we can all do in real life simply by standing up) somehow supposed to enhance a game about spaceships? (...)
By making it a game that is about something else than just spaceships.
Ha ha, oh wow. By this logic you could add a minecraft clone into EVE and it would enhance the game.

I kid you not when I tell you that ...
... if CCP added a solitaire to the game ...
... it would be about solitaire.

Or tetris. Holy ****, I would play all day! :D

(Regional highscore needed of course)

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#69 - 2015-01-05 21:17:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Seagull moved from "unlikely, but anyway would be a new game" to "we're not interested any longer, this is a spaceships game".


Seagull has decided to drag EVE kicking and screaming into the long-hoped-for 2.0 iteration, which is only--what--about 8 years late? The ~someday~ features are now either on the road map now or off completely.

From what I've gathered, mostly from CSM documents, CCP seems content with Legion being the avatar gameplay. Maybe it will grow beyond the current lobby shooter paradigm, especially if CCP is still trying for a Grand Unified Clone that can be a legionnaire, a capsuleer and a valkyrie? Only they know.

Legion solves the problem of avatars being difficult to efficiently individuate by making them interchangeable cyborg-looking things, which at least allows them to solve some problems before moving on to others, instead of trying to solve them all at once. The problem is that the difficulties that they're punting down the road are the really hairy ones, but maybe they're hoping that client hardware will have the computational power to handle it by then? I don't know.

I agree that the timeline we're looking at is likely measured in years.


The more it goes, the more CCP looks like a child star who had a big success and never could replay it, so now they've moved into dressing their success as a "franchise"... which it never was intended to be.

After Home Alone for PC, they made Orbiting Alone for PS3, with appalling lack of success. Then they also moved into Bloodsucking Alone, which turned a disastrous failure worth 22 million $. So they're now into developing Virtually Alone, a videogame that will be done whenever the hardware for it is done (sometime this decade). And recently they also announced Shooting Alone.

But they're no longer child stars. They've grown old and quirky, and have alienated all but the more diehard fans, who replay their first and last success again and again and expect them to never ever change for nothing, effectively driving away potential new fans.

That's not a recipe to live long and prosper... and they're already too old to leave a pretty corpse.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#70 - 2015-01-05 21:24:01 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How is somehow having an avatar that can walk around and touch things (aka the thing we can all do in real life simply by standing up) somehow supposed to enhance a game about spaceships? (...)
By making it a game that is about something else than just spaceships.
Ha ha, oh wow. By this logic you could add a minecraft clone into EVE and it Could enhance the game.


FYP. *cheers*
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2015-01-06 00:48:25 UTC
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#72 - 2015-01-06 00:50:57 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
FYP. *cheers*
The point actually stands even with your modification. Not that I'm surprised that you don't realise that.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#73 - 2015-01-06 01:20:54 UTC
Hmmm. This is a good and original question.

OK... well here is some video from 2008

Here's a thread from 2007

soon™?

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#74 - 2015-01-06 06:02:56 UTC
Iterate on the same gameplay for the same people and eventually the number of interested people will wither away to nothing. After revenue, the best case for other types of gameplay is diversity of customers. Saying you'll leave if something you don't like is added to the game is just a bad attitude, and intangible. People tinfoilish enough to leave over something that has no real effect on them will put EVE in a better place once freed of them.

When it comes to games, "hardcore" fan base is another way of saying "small," and that has some pretty obvious implications. To me it sounds like some craigslist job ad containing the phrase, "looking to grow with the company." It's a huge indication that bad behavior and bad decisions are expected to be tolerated.

Anyone holding on to some notion that EVE is hardcore and should stay that way are all kinds of misguided.

Lastly, equivocation. Hardcore is not a valid excuse for disconnected game elements, clunky interfaces, and inadequate implementation of features.

The zombie words that cause people to stop thinking rationally in EVE: Hardcore, and Specialization.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#75 - 2015-01-06 08:07:30 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Iterate on the same gameplay for the same people and eventually the number of interested people will wither away to nothing.
I won't hold my breath.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#76 - 2015-01-06 08:25:07 UTC
In before the lock \o/

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#77 - 2015-01-06 09:25:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Crumplecorn wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
FYP. *cheers*
The point actually stands even with your modification. Not that I'm surprised that you don't realise that.


Your point has no point because you didn't understood my point. EVE can't grow by just doing more of the same because it already is doing the same and isn't growing -actually it was decaying until the faster release cycle gave it some breathing room. Yet faster releases are a one-shot trick with a limited life span as they have their own downsides, the most notorious being novelty stress.

The fact is that EVE's only survival plan to stay alive in 2016 is "do more of the same and hope it will stick".

That was wrong in 2007, was wrong in 2011, is wrong in 2014 and will be fatally wrong sooner or later.

EVE needed a new venue of gameplay, didn't got it, and that's the worst news ever.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#78 - 2015-01-06 09:35:59 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
EVE can't grow by just doing more of the same because it already is doing the same and isn't growing
EVE has seen periods of growth, stability and decline while doing 'more of the same'. All of it's growth ever has been while 'doing more of the same'. Remind me what happened when the devs tried to add avatar gameplay?

Granted it may have gone a lot better if they had stuck to the original concept instead of ditching it for a microtransaction shop - but ultimately CCP trying to add avatar gameplay ended up where it ended up.


Of course this is all an aside, as what I took issue with was the idea that effectively building a second game into EVE could enhance EVE. Even if it would increase subscriber numbers (which it wouldn't, judging by every attempt CCP have made to do something new inside or outside EVE), it by definition wouldn't enhance the game we have, because it would be adding a new game.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Solecist Project
#79 - 2015-01-06 09:50:26 UTC
To me, you're all naked.

Especially Indah and Erica.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#80 - 2015-01-06 10:29:06 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
EVE can't grow by just doing more of the same because it already is doing the same and isn't growing
EVE has seen periods of growth, stability and decline while doing 'more of the same'. All of it's growth ever has been while 'doing more of the same'. Remind me what happened when the devs tried to add avatar gameplay?

Granted it may have gone a lot better if they had stuck to the original concept instead of ditching it for a microtransaction shop - but ultimately CCP trying to add avatar gameplay ended up where it ended up.


Of course this is all an aside, as what I took issue with was the idea that effectively building a second game into EVE could enhance EVE. Even if it would increase subscriber numbers (which it wouldn't, judging by every attempt CCP have made to do something new inside or outside EVE), it by definition wouldn't enhance the game we have, because it would be adding a new game.


I didn't said that it should be another game. If it was another game, then it would not matter whether it was added to EVE or just as a standalone project.