EVE General Discussion

You'd think Star Wars Galaxies would have been a sufficient abject lesson in that truth, but apparently not.

It colloquially means "miserable, terrible, painful or unpleasant". Given what happened to SWG, I'd say it applies.

You've spouted this lie before, and got shot down then too.

You are claiming a theoretical(and imaginary) majority to try and give credence to your screeching to have your niche catered to at the expense of everyone else in the game. It's as selfish as it gets, which is why you try and borrow the weight of imaginary people when you do it.

You can knock it off now.




And like all PvE "content", it would be gamed within hours of being released on SiSi, and made totally irrelevant to everyone.

PvE is literally a 100% waste of dev time, until they decide to actually make it hard, instead of a trivial mechanic to inject assets into the game.

CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.

even by that graph:

- socials: doing as much pvp as they are industry and pve
- traditionals: doing slightly more industry and pve compared to pvp, but not by a large margin
- entrepreneurs: doing about as much pvp as they are pve (missions and mining)

I don't think it's really reasonable to break players up into regular pvp v not regular pvp and declaring pvp players as a minority.

I can't find the statement at the moment but will go look for it, but CCP have said that approximately 50% of players are regularly involved in pvp, so the issue of minority/majority isn't as black and white as a simple reading of that graph indicates. It's more complicated than a 2 group classification.

Even if you try to classify players into 2 groups, there have been a lot of claims of shrinking numbers in the game over the last couple of years. How many of those have been pvp oriented players leaving for lack of focus on pvp?

We don't know. If you are in the Eve is dying camp, then it could just as easily be because of a lack of focus on pvp development as much as pve development.

But hey, in your twisted world, I bet you think that means that CCP needs to waste more time on the thing that doesn't retain players, instead of put more time on the thing that does.

Because apparently we should waste loads of dev time not on ship balancing, structures, or other such things that the game direly needs...

We should be wasting it refreshing this game's PvE "content" every couple months or so, once you inevitably get tired of the banality of shooting red crosses.



Listening to people like you is exactly what killed Ultima Online, and Star Wars Galaxies.

That might just be the biggest "If" in the history of the game.

Given that this is not a flight sim, and all. Heck, even Elite Dangerous can't really manage to make NPCs any serious threat without just amping up their tank and damage stats.

Oh, come on.

First: define "fun". Obviously the guy quoting you doesn't knows why mission runners do run missions. I've run in excess of 2,400 missions (and can prove it! ), and so I have a couple of clues on why I keep doing it. Same goes for mining, too.

So, in one hand, PvE needs "more of the same". That would be a good thing; I've been running missions since 2009 and guess what? I *never* wrote the guide for one. There was no need to, the guides already had been written before i joined the game. I know that this was because CCP didn't had the tools and building new misions was horribly time consuming and painstakingly difficult.

But two years after CCP began developing mission making tools, what have we got? Burner missions. Not a single poor lil' Level 4. Not even a "Damsel's revenge" where your goal is to keep the Damsel (and her cruiser) alive by blasting waves of rats as she takes dow the Pleasure complex... and then Kruul has set MORE explosives so the cruiser is going to pop unless it haves 90% of its original tank when the complex blows. Doh! A mission that can be failed! And without using a single new resource, just old mission tools and AI.

But there's more. CCP have proved to be capable of coming up with complex systems for PvP *cough* FozzieSov *cough* which, even if they're more or less dead on arrival, certainly ARE complex and require LOTS of new resources. Let alone the PvP structures and their magical you-lost-your-Citadel-but-not-your-stuff-seriously bull.

CCP only needs to do for PvE what they've been doing for PvP. Make PvE something generated by players, consumed by players, in order to affect other players. That IS unconsensual PvP, too. It only takes to take seriously that some people will not shot oher people... not in EVE at least, and maybe not in person. But that doesn't means that, provided a chance, those people would gleefully mess with other people, specially those coming after them with their PvP ships.

For some reason you seem to think that agent missions are anything to do with "fun PvE". I am at a loss to think why. Missions are at best mining with a fancy label and some flavour text, and introducing them was a horrible mistake for EVE at every level.

CCP's modern PvE direction can be clearly seen with, uh, the PvE they've introduced since; Sleepers, Incursions, Burners, Drifters.

PS: it's also pretty cute that you think "2400" missions is a lot.

I bet CCP told you that.
Really, that is such a stupid comment to make.

1 in 100 new players (less than 1 month) is ok with losing ships in pvp while he can't reasonably defend himself, has no idea how the game works, no game currency to replace lost ships, etc.
To improve new player retention, CCP need to start offering a LOT more to new players.
If it is considered to be at acceptable levels, player numbers should remain fairly stable. 1 joins 1 leaves.

Most games look at new players as a way to increase player numbers, CCP seem to use them as a means of keeping numbers stable.


Damn you Kaarous, you make a nonsense comment then go and say something really valid.
Stop confusing me!!