These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

First post
Author
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#1021 - 2015-09-02 09:48:23 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
The fact is too many noobs play the game.

Something really drastic needs to change the face of PVP, i'm messing around FW space and like losing slashers. What annoys me more than anything is how you can set someone up perfectly just for a friend of the intended victim (that you don't see because the information is not there to be analysed) change the battle landscape. It's just causes PVP to be dull predictable and regimented.

I hate warp disrupters/scramblers (Cutting MWD off yes, stopping people from retreating no) they are one of the biggest deterrents for PVP because people won't commit. Some argue that you make the decision to engage and you must commit becuase you made a bad decision and you must pay the consequence. I don't agree on that at all. Someone can make a bad bad decision and have a mate come save him, you made a good decision but now because of unseen circumstances you have no way to regroup and retreat.

If anything, the next mods to hit the hammer should be warp disrupters and scramblers.


You pick a fight, get tackled and whine when the target's friends arrive and blap you.

Yet you think you are the one who did not make the bad decision?

Kind of sounds like you are saying "I suck at PVP, nerf it so I can run away from a fight if I am losing."

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

Whitehound
#1022 - 2015-09-02 10:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Avvy wrote:
Something may appear random to someone but that doesn't mean it is.

Of course not. If we assume the entire universe was predictable then nothing within would ever be random. Neither human behaviour nor the lottery. But this was not the question, was it? We certainly do allow events to be described as random, because of our lack of knowledge over what exactly caused them. Does a buyer buy items because he needs them? They most often do, don't they? Do we know why he thinks he needs them? That we also often know. But do we know the exact time when this will happen? We most often do not, but we can look it up after a sale has been made. That makes is random.

My point still is that loss is essential to PvP and that in market trading you are save from losses from others (excluding your own failures). The market environment protects you with guarantees (you either get the amount of ISKs you have asked for or you get the item back), shields you from being identified (competing sellers can not see your name, only buyers can know your name after the sale), allows you only to modify or to remove your own orders and turns it into competitive PvE.

The question over what the lottery was, since it is one of the most random things, was just a question. Still interesting to see how someone would describe the lottery as PvP.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Maraner
The Executioners
#1023 - 2015-09-02 10:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Maraner
The game does seem to be in flux at the moment.

There have been a long series of 'expansions' where a great deal of the content was moving the slider bars on the ship statistics... sorry CCP but that was just how it felt.

There needs to be some new content in the game that everyone can enjoy. Whilst a rationalization of some of the recent changes takes place.

However for me among many of the things that concern me the most is the pace of change. Last fanfest we were promised player made gates.... no sign after nearly a year.

The fozzie sov took a long time to appear and appears poorly regarded in many areas. BTW the troll ceptor needs to go away immediately, needs to be skin in the game. Cruiser hulls and bigger for the entosis module, hell I'd make it battleships only or bigger.

Nullified ships need to exit the game immediately. This immunity to being shot.... whoever thought that one up....
But most of all content. New content, new trailers like the butterfly effect. New ships T2 dreds? new modes of warfare and although I hate the use the term new Jesus features. Good ones. Oh and quickly please.... quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5LdPf2J_hs

I believe CCP can bring back a new golden age to EVE but they need a sharp focus and some rapid progress.
Avvy
Doomheim
#1024 - 2015-09-02 10:06:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:
Avvy wrote:


Like someone else said if there was no light there would be no colour, I disagree with that. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.



You might want to do some research on that topic before making such a nonsense statement.


Been afk making a drink, considering my comment you quoted here.

Ok, you're right but not much research needed, just had to remind myself what the definition of the word colour is.
Darth Schweinebacke
Wings of Fury.
#1025 - 2015-09-02 10:10:11 UTC
Big smile
Avvy
Doomheim
#1026 - 2015-09-02 10:19:26 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

The question over what the lottery was, since it is one of the most random things, was just a question. Still interesting to see how someone would describe the lottery as PvP.



I don't remember anyone before MMOs talking about PvE and PvP.

As far as I know they were terms specifically used within video gaming to distinguish between two main styles.

I really don't think it matters outside of video games.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1027 - 2015-09-02 10:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
We certainly do allow events to be described as random, because of our lack of knowledge over what exactly caused them.
No, we don't, because that would imply a lot more knowledge that's what's available in such an instance. Either way, it would be a wholly inaccurate description of the market, since we know what's causing it and since we know it's not random, nor does it appear to be random.

Quote:
Does a buyer buy items because he needs them? They most often do, don't they? Do we know why he thinks he needs them? That we also often know. But do we know the exact time when this will happen? We most often do not, but we can look it up after a sale has been made. That makes is random.
No, it makes it unknown. “Random" is something completely different, and since we know it is not random it would be entirely inaccurate to use that term.

Quote:
My point still is that loss is essential to PvP and that in market trading you are save from losses from others
Your point is still inaccurate, as has been amply demonstrated.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#1028 - 2015-09-02 11:01:43 UTC
I sometimes think you all like to argue over nothing in partcular, because you just had this impressions.
I usually dont argue over impressions, even when someone says they are facts, they are often not.

Maybe just enjoy the game, if there is something to enjoy in the first place.
Stop and ask yoursef that question, do you want to play the game, and why.
Or maybe why not?
Its everyones oppinion, how is the game doing...

If you want statistical data, make a survey.
GeorgePenken
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1029 - 2015-09-02 11:24:17 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
The fact is too many noobs play the game.

Something really drastic needs to change the face of PVP, i'm messing around FW space and like losing slashers. What annoys me more than anything is how you can set someone up perfectly just for a friend of the intended victim (that you don't see because the information is not there to be analysed) change the battle landscape. It's just causes PVP to be dull predictable and regimented.

I hate warp disrupters/scramblers (Cutting MWD off yes, stopping people from retreating no) they are one of the biggest deterrents for PVP because people won't commit. Some argue that you make the decision to engage and you must commit becuase you made a bad decision and you must pay the consequence. I don't agree on that at all. Someone can make a bad bad decision and have a mate come save him, you made a good decision but now because of unseen circumstances you have no way to regroup and retreat.

If anything, the next mods to hit the hammer should be warp disrupters and scramblers.


I kinda like this idea. Instead of warp disrupters and scramblers being modules that have an on and off button - I suppose it would be kinda neat to have some sort of other gameplay, which means when you pick a fight, getting tackled isn't just about a target's friend arriving and blapping you making you think you are the one who made the bad decision. It's got nothing to do with sucking at pvp, nerf it so I can run away from a fight if I am losing, the thrill of PVP is just as much about surviving as it is about popping someone.

Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#1030 - 2015-09-02 11:44:59 UTC
GeorgePenken wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
The fact is too many noobs play the game.

Something really drastic needs to change the face of PVP, i'm messing around FW space and like losing slashers. What annoys me more than anything is how you can set someone up perfectly just for a friend of the intended victim (that you don't see because the information is not there to be analysed) change the battle landscape. It's just causes PVP to be dull predictable and regimented.

I hate warp disrupters/scramblers (Cutting MWD off yes, stopping people from retreating no) they are one of the biggest deterrents for PVP because people won't commit. Some argue that you make the decision to engage and you must commit becuase you made a bad decision and you must pay the consequence. I don't agree on that at all. Someone can make a bad bad decision and have a mate come save him, you made a good decision but now because of unseen circumstances you have no way to regroup and retreat.

If anything, the next mods to hit the hammer should be warp disrupters and scramblers.


I kinda like this idea. Instead of warp disrupters and scramblers being modules that have an on and off button - I suppose it would be kinda neat to have some sort of other gameplay, which means when you pick a fight, getting tackled isn't just about a target's friend arriving and blapping you making you think you are the one who made the bad decision. It's got nothing to do with sucking at pvp, nerf it so I can run away from a fight if I am losing, the thrill of PVP is just as much about surviving as it is about popping someone.



You can use energy neutralizers to shut down the warp scrambler of your enemy.
You can use ecm drones to get a chance of breaking away from the fight, when you get a jam.
You can fly an ecm bonussed ship and prevent getting shot for a good while ... I love Griffins.
You can fly a ship with high alpha damage ... there's a reason why dessies and tier 3 BCs are popular.

There are many options.


Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.

Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#1031 - 2015-09-02 11:55:21 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
I sometimes think you all like to argue over nothing in partcular, because you just had this impressions.
I usually dont argue over impressions, even when someone says they are facts, they are often not.

Maybe just enjoy the game, if there is something to enjoy in the first place.
Stop and ask yoursef that question, do you want to play the game, and why.
Or maybe why not?
Its everyones oppinion, how is the game doing...

If you want statistical data, make a survey.


How about CCP offer to make certain members of the community that actively contribute a part of some focus group? And I don't just mean the CSM because a lot of those votes are fixed anyway, I mean as best as possible people who have been identified as real contributors towards the game and get their (hopefully unbiased) opinions about what can be done.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#1032 - 2015-09-02 12:04:08 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
How about CCP offer to make certain members of the community that actively contribute a part of some focus group? And I don't just mean the CSM because a lot of those votes are fixed anyway, I mean as best as possible people who have been identified as real contributors towards the game and get their (hopefully unbiased) opinions about what can be done.

It's CSM role. I wish we have CSM memebers more focused on certain aspects of the game. For example representant of PvErs, PvPers etc. More focused discussions of what is possible and what is not.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Murauke
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#1033 - 2015-09-02 12:09:44 UTC
Jill Xelitras wrote:
GeorgePenken wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
The fact is too many noobs play the game.

Something really drastic needs to change the face of PVP, i'm messing around FW space and like losing slashers. What annoys me more than anything is how you can set someone up perfectly just for a friend of the intended victim (that you don't see because the information is not there to be analysed) change the battle landscape. It's just causes PVP to be dull predictable and regimented.

I hate warp disrupters/scramblers (Cutting MWD off yes, stopping people from retreating no) they are one of the biggest deterrents for PVP because people won't commit. Some argue that you make the decision to engage and you must commit becuase you made a bad decision and you must pay the consequence. I don't agree on that at all. Someone can make a bad bad decision and have a mate come save him, you made a good decision but now because of unseen circumstances you have no way to regroup and retreat.

If anything, the next mods to hit the hammer should be warp disrupters and scramblers.


I kinda like this idea. Instead of warp disrupters and scramblers being modules that have an on and off button - I suppose it would be kinda neat to have some sort of other gameplay, which means when you pick a fight, getting tackled isn't just about a target's friend arriving and blapping you making you think you are the one who made the bad decision. It's got nothing to do with sucking at pvp, nerf it so I can run away from a fight if I am losing, the thrill of PVP is just as much about surviving as it is about popping someone.



You can use energy neutralizers to shut down the warp scrambler of your enemy.
You can use ecm drones to get a chance of breaking away from the fight, when you get a jam.
You can fly an ecm bonussed ship and prevent getting shot for a good while ... I love Griffins.
You can fly a ship with high alpha damage ... there's a reason why dessies and tier 3 BCs are popular.

There are many options.




I disagree -

You can use energy neutralizers to shut down the warp scrambler of your enemy. - Always depends on cap size of ship
You can use ecm drones to get a chance of breaking away from the fight, when you get a jam. - This is very much at the mersey of chance, unlike disrupters that 100% of the time work.
You can fly an ecm bonussed ship and prevent getting shot for a good while ... I love Griffins. - again this is down to chance.
You can fly a ship with high alpha damage ... there's a reason why dessies and tier 3 BCs are popular. There is that but in the event that the OP was talking about being able to survive, if i understand correctly, much of the information you make when choosing to engage is from the information you can obtain from D scan etc, it almost sounds like the OP wants a better way to make a more informed decision, instead of the "regimented", point, hold wait for reinforcement and overkill.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1034 - 2015-09-02 12:18:22 UTC
This thread is embarrassing for us.

Please lock it.
Whitehound
#1035 - 2015-09-02 12:18:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
We certainly do allow events to be described as random, because of our lack of knowledge over what exactly caused them.
No, we don't ...

Of course we do. We even have different names for it: arbitrary, noise, luck, ... Whenever we do not have any further information on the cause do we use them. Your favourite word is "irrelevant" and it serves you a similar purpose.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Salvos Rhoska
#1036 - 2015-09-02 12:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Whitehound wrote:


My point still is that loss is essential to PvP and that in market trading you are save from losses from others (excluding your own failures). The market environment protects you with guarantees (you either get the amount of ISKs you have asked for or you get the item back), shields you from being identified (competing sellers can not see your name, only buyers can know your name after the sale), allows you only to modify or to remove your own orders and turns it into competitive PvE.


Loss, as your quote states, is meaningful. However what you ascribe as a loss, is measured against what values you hold it up to.
Some people do not consider losing a 1bil ship, a "loss", but objectively, it is.
Some people do not consider their commodities sitting on the market for 90 days, a "loss", but objectively any number of people were making profit in that interim, and directly denying that to the guy who has sold nothing (and who instead has effectively also lost all of their structural trading overhead costs for placing the orders, with no return).

In market trading, the objective are profit and market share (as well as sourcing commodities for other activities).
Yes, you can choose to never sell or buy anything, and subsequently never lose nor profit from trading.
But that doesn't change the market game, just means you never play it.
You can also choose to subjectively consider yourself not taking a loss if someone manages to more successfully pursue their trading goals over yours, but the result is still that they benefited by their actions, and you did not. You objectively "lost" the opportunity, and they gained it and its benefits, due to their market actions as competitive against yours.

When you do involve yourself in it by buying or selling, you are in competitive interaction with other players.
Whether they are anonymous (as we all are anyways in EVE, since we operate under aliases), does not change that.
Knowing who they are, would be useful information that can be used for purposes of player vs player interaction and competition, but is not a condition of PvP.
All the action on the market, is a result of player action (with the exception of a few NPC commodities, which they themselves also are ultimately subject to player action and manipulation, to a dynamic result).
None of it is random, it is all deliberate and enacted by other players.
There is no AI RNG affecting it.

The market system incurs some environmental constraints, in the form of limitations on range, tariffs/taxes/fees, number of orders etc. These can be mitigated by player action in terms of skilling, so as to improve that players competitive edge vs other players in these markets. The trading environment itself, however, is AI inactive. It provides merely the framework and basic interface mechanics for players to enact trading in EVE. Meaning players do not play against the AI/NPC, meaning there is no PvE element.

Players are not an "environment" element (which is misleading in the term PvE, as it actually applies specifically to AI/NPC non-player content ONLY, never to other players (in which case its obviously PvP, as it involves another player).
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#1037 - 2015-09-02 12:22:00 UTC
The VC's wrote:
This thread is embarrassing for us.

Please lock it.

Freddie Mercury has spoken
Avvy
Doomheim
#1038 - 2015-09-02 12:30:16 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
The VC's wrote:
This thread is embarrassing for us.

Please lock it.

Freddie Mercury has spoken



I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about anymore as it has deviated so much.

I think a lock might be a good idea.

Salvos Rhoska
#1039 - 2015-09-02 12:36:33 UTC
Imo this thread has been such a remarkable ramble through so many topics that I suggest it remains open for it to run its course till it drops off the list on its own eventual lack of merit.

Sometimes threads with many overlapping topics involved can lead to wider discussion on interconnected stuff, that would not take place in other threads being as focused on specific ones at the exception of others.

Lets just try to keep it polite, at the least.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1040 - 2015-09-02 12:40:14 UTC
It's an interesting and important topic that's worth a discussion but it's devolved it to a trainwreck with an idiot who I suspect is having some serious RL issues and a load of dudes who really should know better that to argue with him.

If this was happening in a pub the landlord would have refuse to serve them anymore drinks by now and their mates would have taken them home for a cup of tea and cartoons on the telly.