EVE General Discussion

No he does not!
(Ignore this spoiler people)
Bad Istanchuk! Bad! *Whacks with Amarr printed propeganda.*

Is it a 12-13 year old trend by any chance? Cuz jeans are a 'trend' too, ya know.

I'd imagine CCP would be somewhat worried about the demise of Eve - They have built quite the ivory tower around it.

There is no good reason why Eve should ever fail and disappear - Except for bad development choices - CCP is doing a fine job of that atm but it isn't too late to turn it around.
Get the narrow minded Devs to look outside what they "think" players want and listen to what players actually want - Eve could go on forever.

Some of the recent changes could be compared to drilling wholes in the hull of a ship to stop it sinking.

So the one that built this game from 2003 then?

We/they didn't stay around for a broken stalemate system which Sov 4.0 has become, so in fact, CCP is working for this very majority in a valiant attempt to generate self-sustaining pewpewpew as it has always been.





This is precisely what the drama queens would like not to acknowledge. It would seem having something like ISBotters for the short-term PCU ballooning effect is not detrimental to the health of the game in the long run in their very own opinions.

They'd rather have Capitals Online with 5 spare pilots & cyno alts per each entity & then twenty thousand ISBotters leveraging a 3rd party software to destroy & annihilate EVE's economy & ecosystem, than a healthy, well-measured & contained game.

However, I'm in full agreement with Ishtanchuk Fazmarai with regards to current population distributions, the potential in the continued WiS development and the need for more engaging PvE content.

No, its not. Eve was growing until around the end of 2010. Then it had its ups and downs, but was stable until mid 2013 or early 2014, depending on your interpretation. Since then the PCU count has been steadily dropping. Yes, this is the PCU count. But you have to be on-line to create content in the sandbox. Hence, irrelevant of what is happening with subscriber numbers, or CCP revenue, or CCP profit, the eve sandbox is shrinking

Suit the majority of who? The only people I see supporting comments like this are shitposters and npc alts. The 'majority' of people who weren't dropped on their heads repeatedly as children support the current development cycle. Changes to gameplay mechanics are not an attack on your chosen gameplay style. You need to be relevant for that. Most of the people whinging here have excluded themselves from the developmental process (and this thread demonstrates why we should be grateful for that). Following the CSM about snivelling at them doesn't count. Incoherent ranting in GD about every single grievance you have with this game, CCP, the playerbase and then trying to be 'scientific' by pointing vaguely at the PCU doesn't count.

Also, be a bit more specific with your accusations about player devs. Fozzie is ex PL, not Test (some of you seem a bit confused on this). If he was going to buff their playstyle he'd be pushing for T2 Supercaps, capital only entosis links and wearable Taylor Swift avatars (for all genders). Only a complete imbecile would try to dump major gameplay changes on a single dev or CSM, but apparently some of you are indeed daft enough to try this. Phoebe changes were dreamed up by Greyscale (nobody had ever mentioned power projection prior to that, nope) becase he wrote the blog, Fozzie is reponsible for the new sov system in it's entirety, because he wrote the blog. See a pattern here? Attacking Seagull is a massive mistake btw, she's easily the most highly regarded dev CCP has ever had, but don't let that stop you. Manny is responsible for fleet warp changes, corebloodbrothers for the ISaBotter ban, etc etc. It's always fun watching the people who proclaim the CSM are an irrelevant PR stunt simultaneously try to blame them for specific changes. CCP don't listen to player feedback - or they do, just not the 'right' players. When in doubt as to who to rage at screeching 'WHHYYY CCP' or 'grrr Goons' or something about griefing-sociopath-cyberbullies will at least guarantee maximum attention for 10 seconds.

If the PCU is down because 50k whiny toddlers decided to go bleat on the Star Citizen forums, shouldn't we be celebrating? I keep reading this topic title as 'The Shrinking Sandybox' anyway, dunno if anyone else is. If it carries on like just think how many scrubs can be purged in the next year or so. Fingers crossed.


Whilst I agree with the rest of your comments, this is an oversimplification. Profits are measured on the the Profit & Loss (Income) statement, but the state of a business is documented on the Balance Sheet. A business can still be viable even when profits are in decline, just as a bad business can show profit. Investors/creditors largely disregard the P&L for this reason. All of which is irrelevant. CCP is a privately owned company. We are customers, not shareholders. Long term business strategy is important to both, but shareholders are the ones with a tangible measure of control over the process. Any other claim is delusional from a financial perspective, as is trying to make blanket claims about the stability of a business based on statistics taken in isolation.

That'll be the majority that Ishtanchuk would have us believe solely resides in hisec and only does PvE. People of her ilk seem to conveniently forget that we're given 3 character slots and that most players have an alt that specialises outside of their normal playstyle, normally in hisec.

These are the same people who are also conveniently ignoring that:

• PCU is not subs
• It's June, one of the months that falls into the season of summer in the northern hemisphere, a traditionally quiet time in Eve
• The ban on input broadcasting has had an effect on the amount of multiboxers, further depleting the PCU numbers
• Services for PLEX are starting to alter the number of accounts people hold, unless you absolutely need to have the ability to run multiple characters simultaneously, or train more than 3 characters, there is no longer a need to hold multiple accounts for the purposes of training multiple characters.

The truth and facts are irrelevant if it doesn't fit in with their personal agenda, we call this type of person a politician where I'm from.

Long may it continue, Eve is not SC or ED, if they want to play a game like SC or ED then they should be playing a game like SC or ED, not Eve.

Disclaimer, I play ED, but not for the reasons I play Eve, they're entirely different animals

SOV null? No, I don't. But I do live full-time in NPC null, in systems you probably deem "low income."

If a system isn't worth living in, and therefore nobody lives in it... I don't see the problem. I don't see why 40% of SOV space being unclaimed would be an issue - they might be claimed today, but are otherwise unoccupied so there's no real different except that a group who would like to move in despite the lower income levels can easily do so under Fozziesov, creating more content. So 40% of SOV being unclaimed six months in to Fozziesov is a good thing IMO. It allows for a more dynamic landscape.

With today's SOV, an entity that owns such a system gets to keep it because basically it's not worth the effort of some other group to take it due to the HP grind. In Fozziesov, the owners of such a system might change every three days for the LOLs, but nobody would really care because as you say nobody is trying to live there.

Regarding logistical systems - yes, alliances will have to carefully look at where they want to live, and how they can move things in to and out of that area.

I have no confidence that Duality, where AT prize ships and high-grade implants are effectively available for free, zero assets are at risk, and CCP has artificially set a goal, will reflect how things will play out on TQ.

To tie this back to the thread's subject - Fozziesov strikes me as an expansion of the sandbox, rather than a contraction. Granted, being able to own systems in absentia will no longer exist, but allows access for groups who would otherwise be shut out.

Oh, absolutely. My point was that a focus on absolute income is insufficient and even harmful.

If you're going to argue, as I have, that it's worth losing income from a certain source so that you can rebuild around income from a more sustainable source, the very first thing you have to establish is that there are times and reasons to accept a shrinking income stream, and even a shrinking customer base, in the near term.

If EVE was actually dying, CCP would not be rolling out new icons for Ballistic Control Systems. They're acting like they have a long term plan, and with CCP Seagull at the helm there's no reason at all to be surprised by that.

Is this majority you speak of possibly based upon your alliance of Low Sec dwellers who roam into Null Sec occasionally and think that it would be hilarious to troll structures with magic wands, by any chance?