These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#601 - 2015-05-13 19:53:57 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Include numbers of bots banned ... data is available ...
... and don't forget MCT which they invited knowing people will consolidate accounts.

Averages... they smell. Averages of PCU smell even more,
because they completely ignore timezones.


TQ population consistently peaks around 18:00 GMT of sundays. Unless the peak shifts to another day and/or hour, comparing those peaks allows to determine change and tis direction.

Also as I already said: bots pay accounts, banned bots don't = CCP losses revenue. Also Alts don't stay logged in long enough to impact PCU = MCTs have little effect in PCU trends.

Twist it as you want it, EVE is a smaller game now than in 2011, and it's shrinking despite all efforts to keep the population up. Without those efforts it would sink like a rock.

Also, I suggest you to consider CCP's latest move to conceal its real situation, since they bought back their publicly traded bonds and now, not being a publicly traded company, they are not obliged to publish their financial reports. And guess what? THEY HAVE REMOVED THAT INFORMATION FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

This is how bloody well are going things for CCP, since they spent ~4.5 million $ to conceal their financials from public scrutiny.

And now let's move back to how ecstatic are the 62% with CCP's new PvP structures and how long are the queues of new players trampling each other in their passion to become owners of a Citadel or whatever the f*ck CCP releases later.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Solecist Project
#602 - 2015-05-13 20:04:16 UTC
0bama Barack Hussein wrote:
And actually, majority of stars in real Milky Way and in ED are RED(ish, counting purple).

90% of all stars are of the same type of ours ...
... but you are right ! My bad!

And Sol is actually white, not yellow.
Let's tell our children to draw a white sun onto the paper. :/

Doesn't change that when ever I cruised around E:D ...
... I encountered stars like ours. All the time.

Boring ****.

http://www.universetoday.com/24299/types-of-stars/
http://www.space.com/22437-main-sequence-stars.html
http://www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-the-sun/

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
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#603 - 2015-05-13 20:14:52 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Include numbers of bots banned ... data is available ...
... and don't forget MCT which they invited knowing people will consolidate accounts.

Averages... they smell. Averages of PCU smell even more,
because they completely ignore timezones.


TQ population consistently peaks around 18:00 GMT of sundays. Unless the peak shifts to another day and/or hour, comparing those peaks allows to determine change and tis direction.

Also as I already said: bots pay accounts, banned bots don't = CCP losses revenue. Also Alts don't stay logged in long enough to impact PCU = MCTs have little effect in PCU trends.

Twist it as you want it, EVE is a smaller game now than in 2011, and it's shrinking despite all efforts to keep the population up. Without those efforts it would sink like a rock.

Also, I suggest you to consider CCP's latest move to conceal its real situation, since they bought back their publicly traded bonds and now, not being a publicly traded company, they are not obliged to publish their financial reports. And guess what? THEY HAVE REMOVED THAT INFORMATION FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

This is how bloody well are going things for CCP, since they spent ~4.5 million $ to conceal their financials from public scrutiny.

And now let's move back to how ecstatic are the 62% with CCP's new PvP structures and how long are the queues of new players trampling each other in their passion to become owners of a Citadel or whatever the f*ck CCP releases later.

I know what you mean! Don't forget the two failed titles since 2011: Dust 514 and that vampire one that never made it.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#604 - 2015-05-13 21:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Aza Ebanu
Nevase Prometeus wrote:
The situation of EVE is crystal clear. When more than half of newcomer quit after got PVP . For anyplayer who don't want PVP but had to accept this EVE's sandbox concept. It feel like got bullied or even relate. who want to pay money to got bullied.

Anygame that could only maintain old players but cannot charm new player to stay will had troubles. When Old player bore and quit and new player feel playing game should give fun not anger and irritated . so they choose another games that had more 'fun' for thems.


never mind off topic
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#605 - 2015-05-13 21:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
So, now that you've all established that Eve is in fact dying, what is the solution?

I suggest a leaflet campaign.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#606 - 2015-05-13 21:45:10 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Include numbers of bots banned ... data is available ...
... and don't forget MCT which they invited knowing people will consolidate accounts.

Averages... they smell. Averages of PCU smell even more,
because they completely ignore timezones.


TQ population consistently peaks around 18:00 GMT of sundays. Unless the peak shifts to another day and/or hour, comparing those peaks allows to determine change and tis direction.

Also as I already said: bots pay accounts, banned bots don't = CCP losses revenue. Also Alts don't stay logged in long enough to impact PCU = MCTs have little effect in PCU trends.

Twist it as you want it, EVE is a smaller game now than in 2011, and it's shrinking despite all efforts to keep the population up. Without those efforts it would sink like a rock.


Too bad they won't let it die, then you could finally be proven right about something. At the end of the day, you don't like EVE, you should be welcoming any whiff of it's demise.

Quote:

Also, I suggest you to consider CCP's latest move to conceal its real situation, since they bought back their publicly traded bonds and now, not being a publicly traded company, they are not obliged to publish their financial reports. And guess what? THEY HAVE REMOVED THAT INFORMATION FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

This is how bloody well are going things for CCP, since they spent ~4.5 million $ to conceal their financials from public scrutiny.

And now let's move back to how ecstatic are the 62% with CCP's new PvP structures and how long are the queues of new players trampling each other in their passion to become owners of a Citadel or whatever the f*ck CCP releases later.


You chose to play EVE Online. You knew or should have known it was a pvp focused game when you downloaded it. And yet somehow because CCP won't cater to your selfish desire to see the game change focuses, you remain. Somewhere, deep down, you have to acknowledge how screwed up that is.

EVE is doing fine , it will be here for years regardless of all the crowing going on.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#607 - 2015-05-13 22:05:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well there was no real need for any extra corroboration, but thank you for taking the trouble to provide it anyway.


So anyway, back to the original topic. The new structures devblog looks extremely interesting. Lots of new sand for the box there.

The concepts shown do look good.
Not sure if I missed it or it just wasn't mentioned but can the citadel weapons be manually controlled, like pos guns?

Stations for player controlled WH space, a real game changer - No more living out of a pos.
Although this; (2nd sentence in particular)
Quote:
All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents. We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
leaves me wondering. To preserve Wormhole space gameplay by making it so you can warp directly to player owned structures using the on-board scanner? Is that not the exact opposite of how WH space is searched now?

Corps (many of whom live in wh's and are not in alliances) will not have the benefit of alliance invulnerability timers yet can plant the citadel structures in WH space. Which will be visible to anyone entering the system by simply opening the on-board scanner.
That to me does not sound like it is "preserving" Wormhole gameplay but completely changing it.


I've only skimmed it really. Spring is a pretty busy time for those of us trying to turn a rubble-strewn wasteland into a garden, and I've prioritised planting an entire raised bed with salads over destroying spaceship hopes and dreams this evening..

The W-space implications have wholly passed me by. I'll try and get some time to read the blog and the more constructive comments this weekend. Truthfully, I just about have the attention to spare for the 0.0 implications. The W-space crew are more than capable of commenting on the effects on their patch. My preperations for the great changes ahead consist of making some effort to accumulate ISK: being able to just buy what you need compensates for a lot of lack of foresight Blink

It is more the concept of timers and vulnerability windows that has me wondering.
Being able to warp directly to a WH structure is fine, as long as vulnerability is dealt with in a proper manner.
Having different types of vulnerability for a personal or corp Citadel vs an alliance owned structure could open up real issues.
The blog mentions using FozzieSov style vulnerability which is a problem for anyone not part of an alliance.

Technically a solo corp could go and plant a Citadel in unclaimed sov space but due to other restrictions to owning sov, they could not claim to own the system and therefore gain benefit from living in the space via isk making potential, defensive indexes, capital systems and the such.

Citadels do offer a means for smaller groups of players to move into the sov game if the mechanics are there to support it.

I strongly feel Citadels should have capture or destroy options. Entosis only destruction is very bland and uninteresting. While endlessly shooting structures with huge HP is quite tedious and boring. Shooting a structure (that can shoot back) whose HP can be reduced by the use of entosis links, would create interesting content.
EG; XLarge Citadel has 20 mil shields, 15 mil armor and 10 mil hull. An Entosis link could reduce the shields (already at 25% due to being RF'd) by 0.5% per cycle, armor and hull by 1% per cycle.
To capture a Citadel (other than smalls) you use entosis with PVP support to create timers. Once the timer is created the attackers can go away for a couple of days and decide if they want to capture the structure for their own use (or to sell it back to the current owners) which would entail them coming back with Entosis and DPS support. If they decide to destroy the structure, they return with DPS and Entosis support.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#608 - 2015-05-13 22:28:36 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:


I strongly feel Citadels should have capture or destroy options. Entosis only destruction is very bland and uninteresting. While endlessly shooting structures with huge HP is quite tedious and boring. Shooting a structure (that can shoot back) whose HP can be reduced by the use of entosis links, would create interesting content.
EG; XLarge Citadel has 20 mil shields, 15 mil armor and 10 mil hull. An Entosis link could reduce the shields (already at 25% due to being RF'd) by 0.5% per cycle, armor and hull by 1% per cycle.
To capture a Citadel (other than smalls) you use entosis with PVP support to create timers. Once the timer is created the attackers can go away for a couple of days and decide if they want to capture the structure for their own use (or to sell it back to the current owners) which would entail them coming back with Entosis and DPS support. If they decide to destroy the structure, they return with DPS and Entosis support.


You are on to something here. But the game design philosophy is predator v. prey. The devs think they have to put players in a vulnerable situation for a win/loss to happen.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#609 - 2015-05-13 22:49:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Include numbers of bots banned ... data is available ...
... and don't forget MCT which they invited knowing people will consolidate accounts.

Averages... they smell. Averages of PCU smell even more,
because they completely ignore timezones.


TQ population consistently peaks around 18:00 GMT of sundays. Unless the peak shifts to another day and/or hour, comparing those peaks allows to determine change and tis direction.

Also as I already said: bots pay accounts, banned bots don't = CCP losses revenue. Also Alts don't stay logged in long enough to impact PCU = MCTs have little effect in PCU trends.

Twist it as you want it, EVE is a smaller game now than in 2011, and it's shrinking despite all efforts to keep the population up. Without those efforts it would sink like a rock.


Too bad they won't let it die, then you could finally be proven right about something. At the end of the day, you don't like EVE, you should be welcoming any whiff of it's demise.

Quote:

Also, I suggest you to consider CCP's latest move to conceal its real situation, since they bought back their publicly traded bonds and now, not being a publicly traded company, they are not obliged to publish their financial reports. And guess what? THEY HAVE REMOVED THAT INFORMATION FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

This is how bloody well are going things for CCP, since they spent ~4.5 million $ to conceal their financials from public scrutiny.

And now let's move back to how ecstatic are the 62% with CCP's new PvP structures and how long are the queues of new players trampling each other in their passion to become owners of a Citadel or whatever the f*ck CCP releases later.


You chose to play EVE Online. You knew or should have known it was a pvp focused game when you downloaded it. And yet somehow because CCP won't cater to your selfish desire to see the game change focuses, you remain. Somewhere, deep down, you have to acknowledge how screwed up that is.

EVE is doing fine , it will be here for years regardless of all the crowing going on.
When I 1st started playing eve, it was indeed a pvp focused game. Now it is a game based on the "biggest group wins"..
Thing is, CCP is not only not catering for the individual and sandbox concept in current development. They are streaming headlong into trying to force every individual to be part of larger and larger groups.
While publicly announcing a move toward smaller groups engaging to fight over things, current development is centered on players creating bigger and bigger groups.
Sure 1 to 5 players can go RF an undefended structure in a few mins with an entosis link but that isn't content. The content only comes when large groups engage to fight over systems or constellations and regions.
The existing large groups have nothing to gain by fighting each other so the only content will be big groups stomping small groups until they give up and leave. FozzieSov does nothing but reduce the time it takes for the large groups to stomp out any opposition.
If FozzieSov was to bring valid change with it, the coalitions would be screaming objections from every direction. They have remained ominously quiet. As the giant coalitions are somewhat responsible for the current state of sov the fact these changes aren't being objected to would indicate, they are ok with them because they pose no threat to them.

"PVP" (player vs player) is becoming a thing of the past in today's eve.

Eve may well be around for years to come but it won't be anything like what many signed up for. Already we are seeing the long term planning and commitment to becoming a sov holder reduced to a couple of days of won or lost with the use of a new module. In some cases, without the need for a shot to be fired.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#610 - 2015-05-13 23:25:53 UTC
Strength in numbers, hasn't it always been that way?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#611 - 2015-05-13 23:59:28 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I strongly feel Citadels should have capture or destroy options. Entosis only destruction is very bland and uninteresting. While endlessly shooting structures with huge HP is quite tedious and boring. Shooting a structure (that can shoot back) whose HP can be reduced by the use of entosis links, would create interesting content.
EG; XLarge Citadel has 20 mil shields, 15 mil armor and 10 mil hull. An Entosis link could reduce the shields (already at 25% due to being RF'd) by 0.5% per cycle, armor and hull by 1% per cycle.
To capture a Citadel (other than smalls) you use entosis with PVP support to create timers. Once the timer is created the attackers can go away for a couple of days and decide if they want to capture the structure for their own use (or to sell it back to the current owners) which would entail them coming back with Entosis and DPS support. If they decide to destroy the structure, they return with DPS and Entosis support.
You are on to something here. But the game design philosophy is predator v. prey. The devs think they have to put players in a vulnerable situation for a win/loss to happen.
Mining is a prime example. Procurers and Skiffs are okay. However, Retrievers, Mackinaws, Covetors and often Hulks are so fragile and useless that they can be killed under the nose of a Skiff by an interceptor, while the Skiff is killing the Interceptor, which can then just get out of range and warp off.

Something like this, will work with the POSes that have no shields and give miners, who are organised some "stand and fight" capability.
I think CCP have game design blinkers on though, so this coming year is going to be interesting.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#612 - 2015-05-14 02:37:57 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


I strongly feel Citadels should have capture or destroy options. Entosis only destruction is very bland and uninteresting. While endlessly shooting structures with huge HP is quite tedious and boring. Shooting a structure (that can shoot back) whose HP can be reduced by the use of entosis links, would create interesting content.
EG; XLarge Citadel has 20 mil shields, 15 mil armor and 10 mil hull. An Entosis link could reduce the shields (already at 25% due to being RF'd) by 0.5% per cycle, armor and hull by 1% per cycle.
To capture a Citadel (other than smalls) you use entosis with PVP support to create timers. Once the timer is created the attackers can go away for a couple of days and decide if they want to capture the structure for their own use (or to sell it back to the current owners) which would entail them coming back with Entosis and DPS support. If they decide to destroy the structure, they return with DPS and Entosis support.


You are on to something here. But the game design philosophy is predator v. prey. The devs think they have to put players in a vulnerable situation for a win/loss to happen.

But what is more predatory than shooting at something that is shooting at you?

We are getting Entosis links, no doubt there. It is how they are used on Citadel Structures that can still be worked on.

I like the idea of an entosis link being a sort of energy neut that works on EHP of structures. The convoluted mini game of capture the node could be done away with and replaced with a genuine combat mechanic that doesn't by default favour large groups of attackers.

Blobs of capital ships could easily be dealt with via a mechanic that increases base EHP of a structure by a % for every capital ship that has aggression towards it and locks them in place. So a group wanting to use capitals to down a structure could do so but with the added risk of having those ships locked in place until the fight is over (one way or the other).

This would deter friendly capital fleets from bumping structure EHP up in an effort to "save" it from real attackers. The only way to get capitals off grid before the fight is over could be, they need to de-aggress and wait out an aggression timer, as the aggression timer counts down, so does the additional EHP added to the structure. So if a structure has sustained 30% damage when the capitals were attacking, it would end up with 30% damage once the timers ended.
The timer would need to be long enough to keep the capitals at risk but not so long they became sitting ducks. Aggression towards other ships would not halt the count down of the structure aggression timer - capitals shooting capitals is a good thing.

Given the choice between shooting a cruiser with an entosis link or a MOM or Titan that is stuck on grid, I'll keep that structure alive as long as I can to kill as many of the big toys I can. The biggest ships in game can be used to attack sov but are at huge risk. This really equates to, Risk vs Reward - Predator vs Prey.
As the attackers entosis link reduces EHP, so a defenders would repair it. This makes killing the ships using them for either attack or defense a real priority for the side that wants to win the most.

A small (but well organized) group could stand and defend their space against the largest of attackers, without having to fight in a whole constellation to defend what could be their only structure. They may well lose in the end (and probably would) but it wouldn't be because they couldn't capture 10 or more nodes in 6 to 9 different systems.

It totally blurs the line of predator and prey.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Spurty
#613 - 2015-05-14 04:06:33 UTC
Not going to disagree with you op.

It's not obvious what you can do in this game. You have to read / follow / ask others.

You don't need to join some huge corporation or become an F1 zombie, but you do need to make some friends.

This 4 hour window for attacking is a stepping stone. Eventually these artificial windows need to be removed completely. To become a foot note. A camp fire horror story you will tell the kids.

But, before this comes to pass, many other hurdles must be navigated.

For example: try getting a modest sized corp of 1,000+ people to move three star systems. Did tidi kick in? Nope? Not bad. Used to make TQ fall over doing that.

Now, bring 1,000+ enemies into the same system and let's brawl.... Oh, you didn't submit the paperwork to harden the server.

Well, like I said, baby steps.

Some of these RULEs are here due to people crying and throwing tantrums. Others are due to hardware limitations.

The Tech involved is bleeding edge and unique in many ways. This is why I play. You don't HAVE to do anything in this game. I get a lot more from using it as an IRC client than pvping these days.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#614 - 2015-05-14 05:18:49 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
but you do need to make some friends.

Not me. I didn't need friends. Played this game for 9 years with no friends at all. Well, I tried joining a corporation that one time. But they weren't very bright, and not much fun either. Must be why I'm so goddamn terrible at Eve.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#615 - 2015-05-14 06:52:52 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
(...)
The existing large groups have nothing to gain by fighting each other so the only content will be big groups stomping small groups until they give up and leave. FozzieSov does nothing but reduce the time it takes for the large groups to stomp out any opposition.
If FozzieSov was to bring valid change with it, the coalitions would be screaming objections from every direction. They have remained ominously quiet. As the giant coalitions are somewhat responsible for the current state of sov the fact these changes aren't being objected to would indicate, they are ok with them because they pose no threat to them.

"PVP" (player vs player) is becoming a thing of the past in today's eve.

Eve may well be around for years to come but it won't be anything like what many signed up for. Already we are seeing the long term planning and commitment to becoming a sov holder reduced to a couple of days of won or lost with the use of a new module. In some cases, without the need for a shot to be fired.


Emphasized for truth.

Now, let's put ourselves in CCP's shoes. They CAN'T **** off the big guys, and CAN'T give small guys a chance without pissing off the big guys. It's a lose-lose proposition for them. They walk towards big guys... FozzieSov... and the small guys become stompable tear bags. They move towards the small guys and succeed... and hell breaks loose on CCP. Pick your poison!

Anyway, as creators (and that is what CCP does, they create), there is always a way to break a dilemma. If you can't walk East nor West... you can bloody walk North or South and move 90º away from the issue.

Sov is gonna be effed no matter what CCP does. Big guys won and can't be un-winned. But there is ROOM for more than Sov in the game. There is ROOM for more than nullsec drama in EVE. There is ROOM for more than pew pew in EVE.

Incarna was 90º from the issue. It failed hard because of reasons. But highsec, PvE and NPC interaction are wide open. CCP still can try to not f*ck that before totally killing the game.

Seriously CCP. Look at the numbers you showed us in Fanfest. We are not here to shoot each other. Our numbers and behavior have told that for 12 years and you as a company never listened to what you didn't wanted to acknowledge.

Other companies deal with that. Nike is not embarrassed to agree that most of their customers never do any sport. Harley Davidson haves no issue with acknowledging that they're just selling metal dicks to decaying masculinities.

CCP should not be ashamed to sell a unique PvE game with some unique PvP drama chances. Bear

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Blackfeathers
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#616 - 2015-05-14 07:35:55 UTC
Another reassuring "Eve is dying" thread - the day these threads stop, is the day I worry about how long Eve will last.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#617 - 2015-05-14 07:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So, now that you've all established that Eve is in fact dying, what is the solution?

I suggest a leaflet campaign.


That is very Obvious, you just have to look at some people's forum bio to see their (not so) hidden agenda.

Quote:
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...


Translated it means "I want EVE to be WOW in space and I'll use numbers to try and convince people that the decline of active EVE accounts is caused by PVP and the only answer is for EVE to become more PVE".

Personally I don't see a problem with lower PCU, bigger isn't necessarily better (the only people who think that bigger = better for companies are managers who get paid for short term gains, stock market traders & bankers, and people who weren't paying attention during economics classes). The "issues" I'm seeing are the following:

- CCP has been dragging their feet for a long while now, there have been a lot of good improvements but on big issues they've been stalling. SOV, rebalancing (really, you still haven't done 95% of the ships?)

- CCP has been buffing/enhancing PVE for a long while now (orca, mining ship rebalance, NPC AI, marauders, crimewatch, carebear friendly wardec and mechanics changes, just to name a few) and guess what, it didn't help get more players, who knew. PVP is on the back burner

- low sec is still unaddressed, while it is so easy to solve (another of those big issues I guess)
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#618 - 2015-05-14 08:01:07 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
(...)
The existing large groups have nothing to gain by fighting each other so the only content will be big groups stomping small groups until they give up and leave. FozzieSov does nothing but reduce the time it takes for the large groups to stomp out any opposition.
If FozzieSov was to bring valid change with it, the coalitions would be screaming objections from every direction. They have remained ominously quiet. As the giant coalitions are somewhat responsible for the current state of sov the fact these changes aren't being objected to would indicate, they are ok with them because they pose no threat to them.

"PVP" (player vs player) is becoming a thing of the past in today's eve.

Eve may well be around for years to come but it won't be anything like what many signed up for. Already we are seeing the long term planning and commitment to becoming a sov holder reduced to a couple of days of won or lost with the use of a new module. In some cases, without the need for a shot to be fired.


Emphasized for truth.

Now, let's put ourselves in CCP's shoes. They CAN'T **** off the big guys, and CAN'T give small guys a chance without pissing off the big guys. It's a lose-lose proposition for them. They walk towards big guys... FozzieSov... and the small guys become stompable tear bags. They move towards the small guys and succeed... and hell breaks loose on CCP. Pick your poison!

Anyway, as creators (and that is what CCP does, they create), there is always a way to break a dilemma. If you can't walk East nor West... you can bloody walk North or South and move 90º away from the issue.

Sov is gonna be effed no matter what CCP does. Big guys won and can't be un-winned. But there is ROOM for more than Sov in the game. There is ROOM for more than nullsec drama in EVE. There is ROOM for more than pew pew in EVE.

Incarna was 90º from the issue. It failed hard because of reasons. But highsec, PvE and NPC interaction are wide open. CCP still can try to not f*ck that before totally killing the game.

Seriously CCP. Look at the numbers you showed us in Fanfest. We are not here to shoot each other. Our numbers and behavior have told that for 12 years and you as a company never listened to what you didn't wanted to acknowledge.

Other companies deal with that. Nike is not embarrassed to agree that most of their customers never do any sport. Harley Davidson haves no issue with acknowledging that they're just selling metal dicks to decaying masculinities.

CCP should not be ashamed to sell a unique PvE game with some unique PvP drama chances. Bear

Unfortunately your right.
I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those making decisions right now. CCP know where change is needed and (I choose to believe) how to go about it but for some very good (business) reasons, they won't introduce valid changes to sov that would open it up to real content.

I do think CCP was a little naive when it began promoting ever larger groups forming into ever larger groups. It could only end one way.
Now they are faced with extremely large groups of bored members who have no real content and are, for now reticent to valid change.
What has been won can't be un-won but those who hold the winning cards can, if they choose go another direction. Discard an ace and gamble on the 3 of a kind instead of the unbeatable 4orce they have come to rely on.

FozzieSov - Some will find smatterings of content vs the have not's while the rest will continue to spend their time doing PVE and quietly complain about the lack of content.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#619 - 2015-05-14 08:07:13 UTC
Blackfeathers wrote:
Another reassuring "Eve is dying" thread - the day these threads stop, is the day I worry about how long Eve will last.

Maybe you should have read more than the 1st page before posting.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#620 - 2015-05-14 08:18:51 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So, now that you've all established that Eve is in fact dying, what is the solution?

I suggest a leaflet campaign.


That is very Obvious, you just have to look at some people's forum bio to see their (not so) hidden agenda.

Quote:
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...


Translated it means "I want EVE to be WOW in space and I'll use numbers to try and convince people that the decline of active EVE accounts is caused by PVP and the only answer is for EVE to become more PVE".

Personally I don't see a problem with lower PCU, bigger isn't necessarily better (the only people who think that bigger = better for companies are managers who get paid for short term gains, stock market traders & bankers, and people who weren't paying attention during economics classes). The "issues" I'm seeing are the following:

- CCP has been dragging their feet for a long while now, there have been a lot of good improvements but on big issues they've been stalling. SOV, rebalancing (really, you still haven't done 95% of the ships?)

- CCP has been buffing/enhancing PVE for a long while now (orca, mining ship rebalance, NPC AI, marauders, crimewatch, carebear friendly wardec and mechanics changes, just to name a few) and guess what, it didn't help get more players, who knew. PVP is on the back burner

- low sec is still unaddressed, while it is so easy to solve (another of those big issues I guess)

Actually I believe the recent decline is due in part to lack of pvp content. Stagnation in certain areas of the game would be a contributing factor.

Lower PCU may well be better for you but it certainly isn't for a company trying to make money, faced with ever increasing costs that may overshadow income.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.