These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hadrian Blackstone
Yamato Holdings
#1561 - 2015-06-24 22:20:31 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
eve ia dying last nght i noticed there were less than 15800 players online before midnight

sinking ship ayndrone




It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.


Its not the same amount of money to CCP, and it's creates inflation in game. Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see.


I'll accept a bit of inflation for that. And if CCP starts losing money they won't just sit on their hands.


When you lose customers you lose money, so the "if" in your statement is fallacy. What are they doing about it?


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1562 - 2015-06-24 22:28:54 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Fozziesov will bring a whole new meaning to griefing;
Griefing does not equal fights for sov. Griefing does not and never will encourage long term content or conflict.
Griefing is all about maximum disruption at minimal cost to the griefer. They will go on griefing but that does not mean their will be good fights (or any for that matter).
What you will get is half entosed structures, left by the griefers as soon as anyone arrives to interfere with them.
Sov holder will then need to point their own laser at the structure for a few mins to undo the griefers work and wait to see if they come back. True griefers won't come back while you are there to defend, they don't want to fight, they just want to be griefers and cause as much disruption as possible with minimal risk of conflict.


I don't see a problem with griefers as you describe. If they run whenever there are defenders, just make sure you have people living in and defending the system. If you have too many systems for your amount of pilots, you have too much SOV and should consolidate and rightfully those other systems should be taken from you, regardless of whether it's by griefers who don't care about their own SOV or a group who wants to live in your unoccupied systems.

You seem to be envisioning the old style of SOV where a group can own multiple empty systems. That's not possible anymore. Previously, you could rely on SOV structures' HP buffer to passively maintain control of a system you never visited (except for a deliberate attack from hostiles, usually in capitals, of course.) With Fozziesov, you cannot do that - you have to actively maintain control of a system. Which sounds like a good thing to me.

A group of one or two hundred pilots should be able to actively occupy a constellation. They will still be subject to being wiped by a roving group like PL, or a nearby bored large alliance like GSF, but they could always have pilots in each system, be active enough in each system to get indexes up, and not have to worry about the occasional trollceptor. If their neighboring constellation has a similarly sized group, they can have plenty of long-term conflict with strategic objectives and back-and-forth action as participation and ISK levels ebb and flow.

You don't live in nulsec do you.
Would you live out of a pos just to ensure you had people in system.

Many systems in sov will not support large groups of players, the rewards for living full time in a low income system that you need for logistics is just not viable. So unless we end up with armies of blues to enable logistics and other required things for an alliance to survive - You will always have systems that are not fully occupied.

Just because Fozzie says "this is how it should be, doesn't mean he has designed Sov so it can be that way.
In fact Fozziesov is so biased to large groups with blue armies it has made a joke of the stated goals of the new sov system.

You seem to be envisioning a sov system where everything is ideal, the rewards for living in a given system are good enough to warrant people living there and not the reality of not all sov is worth holding for anything other than a specific need.

I hope some of the predictions being tossed around are off - 6 months from now 40% of sov will be unclaimed and another 20% will be unclaimable by anyone without a blue army. Blues are far more important under Fozziesov than they were with the current system and griefers are the only real winners in the whole proposal (which isn't surprising really when you look at Fozzies past).

Don't believe me about the affects of griefing ? Jump on Duality get in a cloaky and go roam around the "war zone", watch Fozziesov at work. It is really quite sad (from a development point of view) how easy it is for griefers with no intention of taking sov to get their jollies. (For Fozzie, it would seem old allegiances live on)

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
#1563 - 2015-06-24 22:39:33 UTC
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.

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.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#1564 - 2015-06-24 23:46:48 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.


Hit the nail on the head.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#1565 - 2015-06-25 00:37:42 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.



This.

Stop trying to make the majority do what you think Eve was founded on and should be. Start making Eve cater to the majority who still have the loyalty to pay for it.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1566 - 2015-06-25 02:53:14 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.
For emphasis.

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.
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#1567 - 2015-06-25 03:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Cipher Jones wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.


Its not the same amount of money to CCP


http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers/cmcsthm

Quote:
...and it's creates inflation in game.


How? Smile

Quote:
Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see.


Quite correct, currently 2008 levels of activity.

Cipher Jones wrote:

When you lose customersyou lose money, so the "if" in your statement is fallacy. What are they doing about it?


http://i.imgur.com/tSqTwl9.png - When people such as this come to command such numbers, CCP become a victim in their own hostage situation.

It if far more prudent & sensible to know and account for your real customers, who were decreasing in an inverse correlation to the above.

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
Commander Spurty
#1568 - 2015-06-25 03:58:53 UTC
Ban stick figures always appear to be missing from these sorts of whines.

How many Accounts were banned for BOTTING (Forever!) ?
How many Accounts were banned for RMT (Forever!) ?
How many Accounts were banned for "neither of the above two reasons"?

Add all 3 up and see if you can find your 'shrinkage'.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1569 - 2015-06-25 06:40:44 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.


Boom, headshot!

It doesn't helps much when the only people at CCP who "crossed the fence" barely represent a minority of players.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1570 - 2015-06-25 06:54:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Commander Spurty wrote:
Ban stick figures always appear to be missing from these sorts of whines.

How many Accounts were banned for BOTTING (Forever!) ?
How many Accounts were banned for RMT (Forever!) ?
How many Accounts were banned for "neither of the above two reasons"?

Add all 3 up and see if you can find your 'shrinkage'.



That doesn't matters. What matters is that less characters online = less subscriptions = less money for CCP and less characters online = less "content" = less subscriptions = less money for CCP.

Even if "undead accounts" have become a thing, and thus people are paying in order to not log in, that income is on the verge of becoming non-income as soon as they lose hope that "it will be worth it in the future".

Now, either we see milestones become real and increase activity, or CCP is going to be in deeper sh*t. Some people may be waiting for Fozziesov. Some may be waiting for the Rubicon plan. But in the case that those milestones fail to increase server activity in a durable manner (not just spike for a couple months after release, then go back to shrinking), CCP will begin losing the "undead" income.

At some point, bittervets must agree that CCP is never going to make it worth for them and so they're skilling up for not my game.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#1571 - 2015-06-25 07:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.
For emphasis.


Which majority?


The majority that built this game from 2003, or the potential imaginary one that is found in most other MMOs? Smile

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

That doesn't matters. What matters is that less characters online = less subscriptions = less money for CCP and less characters online = less "content" = less subscriptions = less money for CCP.


That matters a lot, because the logic does not extend to ISBotters & other miscellanea creating (constructive) content.

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
Anna Dufour
Acramann
#1572 - 2015-06-25 08:03:20 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.


yup, not much need to elaborate.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1573 - 2015-06-25 11:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
A fictional scenario like the one I sketched above would make EVE 100% more interesting, and would turn it into a better PvP sandbox, where every playstyle was given tools to oppose every other playstyle.

I feel it's a better idea to realize that every tool has a purpose and even if you like one of them more than another, and therefore are more proficient with it, sometimes it just won't cut it. You have to use that another tool, and maybe get to know someone who knows how to use it. Possibly by bringing your tool and skills to help that other guy while he's busy with your problems.
This way you have a system with less arbitrary "gameplay enforcers" like one you suggested - something that is pretty much opposite of sandbox. Besides, you don't outsource things that players could do to NPCs - something associated with concept of MMO.

If you think about it, you'll see that people who embrace the concept actually form groups we consider powerful. Sov blocks, WH communities - you can't do much there without having both worker lending a shovel and soldier lending a gun to the cause. It also helps that you can be both in EVE.


...Honestly, it's getting more and more confusing as time goes. Multiplayer sandbox is not about being able to stick to something ignoring everything else in the world is you choose so. That's what your Steam library is for. It's about facing objective reality of universe not governed by some scenarist's artificial narrative.

I think I should sig that last one.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#1574 - 2015-06-25 11:27:08 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Anna Dufour wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:


It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.


yup, not much need to elaborate.


Definitely. Everything is crystal-clear. It is not. Smile

Which majority? If Entosis Link replacing 10 dreadnaughts is not catering to THAT majority then I don't know what is. Big smile

Casuals. How - casual.

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1575 - 2015-06-25 12:08:57 UTC
GankYou wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hadrian Blackstone wrote:
It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.

It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome.

CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority.
For emphasis.
]Which majority?The majority that built this game from 2003, or the potential imaginary one that is found in most other MMOs? Smile
The one that can be found through activity metrics, you know, scientifically. Blink

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.
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
#1576 - 2015-06-25 13:09:37 UTC
EvE players will keep coming back for another beating because they can change him :)
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1577 - 2015-06-25 13:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Is EVE still dying? Seriously, this game would make a great supporting character in a blockbuster movie. You know, the one that always dies but takes ages to die so he/she can spin off a few lines of deep monologue to the main character. Except for the fact that EVE's taking so long to die, its monologue would require a whole manuscript of its own. Maybe, actually, the whole death scene could be its own spin-off movie.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1578 - 2015-06-25 13:23:11 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Is EVE still dying? ....
Melodramatic exaggerations to dismiss entire threads aside.
We are discussing a trend.

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.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1579 - 2015-06-25 13:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Is EVE still dying? Seriously, this game would make a great supporting character in a blockbuster movie. You know, the one that always dies but takes ages to die so he/she can spin of a few lines of deep monologue to the main character. Except for the fact that EVE's taking so long to die, its monologue would require a whole manuscript of its own. Maybe, actually, the whole death scene could be its own spin-off movie.


If you think of it this way, [Br]eaking [Ba]d is a TV series about a guy who's dying... P





...and he dies eventually. Blink

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1580 - 2015-06-25 13:35:15 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Is EVE still dying? Seriously, this game would make a great supporting character in a blockbuster movie. You know, the one that always dies but takes ages to die so he/she can spin of a few lines of deep monologue to the main character. Except for the fact that EVE's taking so long to die, its monologue would require a whole manuscript of its own. Maybe, actually, the whole death scene could be its own spin-off movie.

Eve is Kenny off SouthPark.

Who killed Kenny this week?