EVE General Discussion

I'd hardly call that definitive.

Following incursions, the numbers of players didn't really drop off that much. Incarna caused a bit of a drop (though less than recent days) but that was nothing to do with PvE. Seems to me that you're just graspings at straws, trying to find a way to blame PVE when really the problems with EVE have nothing to do with any given type of content.

Are you sure it didn't have more to do with the creation and solidification of the blue doughnut? Tha'ts about the same time that nullsec got really boring as the n+1 factor hit extreme levels and caused a lot of people to get really tired of nullsec. I would argue that was probably the biggest reason numbers dropped so much. I for one almost wanted to quit when I moved back out to nullsec, joined Gentlemen's Aggreement and by extension the CFC, and proceeded to claw my eyes out in boredom due to the number of blues, lack of freedom to roam, etc.

Just right now EvE is not the only big spacegame anymore.

EvE is not as shiny as mentioned ones and somewhat it is a little bit like beer.
You do not like it as a kid, cause it is bitter, but after a while one develops a taste for it.

So yes, i think too, that the problem is not PvP vs PvE. EvE had both for a long time and grew.

Without brownnosing:
Maybe citadel stuff and actual amarr lore go hand in hand to give more new content for every one. As in more lore and more fights in hisec.

And there is always on thing:
Every PvE opportunity, is a PvP opportunity too.

Hopefully. It has to be done right. One downside is that they are clinging to the entosis link, and it's absolutely dire. It's like if you had a brainstorming session to come up with the most boring mechanic, that one would win in an instant. Also, without other changes in highsec, it just means that a wardec group only needs one person to be a threat to a pos, whereas now with a little preparation it would take at least a small group to assault one.

I think one thing they need to work out is that you can't force someone into content they don't like, so jamming in mechanics that mean you have to actively defend and fight for everything sounds great on paper, but in practice it leads to one side min-maxing the mechanic to roflstomp everyone and the other side opting out of the content.

True enough.

I actually agree as well. We all have to make isk in some way to provide for the other activities. Doing random generator missions that follow a core: x pirate type + y number of waves + z level of difficulties + alpha random events (neuts, webs, scramming frigs, ghost site timer, remote repping logistics[T1 and T2 versions]) + beta random events (allied faction spawns [amarr mission spawns caldari NPC to help], 3rd party spawn [amarr mission spawns Serpentis NPC], elite faction spawn [drops faction loot but is very challenging, like 6/10-8/10 DED site boss], NPC triage carrier hotdrop [makes people have to bail and then come back with friends to finish the mission], etc = 1 very challenging, always new, completely engaging, can't be min/maxed easily mission.

Doing overhauls on all of the missions so that you have the current missions and a whole new set of the "same" mission. Giving both options would allow the casuals to still semi-AFK run missions and the people who get bored of the same old, same old an engaging experience, plus it will require group play in some instances.

Personally I think thee main things are needed for missions.

First off, like you say, yeah, randomness. Every mission of the same name is the same, and that gets stale fast. Missions should vary in themselves, and even be made of random components, so you might have a mix of parts from different missions in it.

Secondly, mission escalations. Not like a normal escalation where you get faction spawns and whatnot, but like a second mission given to you in space when you finish the first. Like you have to blow up a structure, and sometimes a ship come out as it blows up and warps off, with your agent like "Hey! If you go after him I'll give you the following rewards (standard mission rewards, accept/decline)" which adds a second mission that you immediately warp to. Once done you go back and hand them both in.

Finally, failure states. It's possible for someone to rob you of your mission item, but that's it. There's no real way to fail a mission, only a way to have to cancel it. You should actually be able to fail, like have time limits or something you have to protect while fighting, and if you don't do it the mission actually fails. In some cases there could even be collateral you lose.

Computer algorithms would create a large number of unique missions that to a first approximation were all exactly the same. The real solution to this problem is for CCP to produce an endless stream of new content using experts - artists, animators, designers. This is very time consuming and expensive for a studio and I expect that's why they don't do it.

At the moment the sandbox allows players to create their own missions. Unfortunately this mostly involves trying to gank or scam other players (in high sec - where new players enjoy their "content") and in null the idea seems to be to kiss butt on the undock with some jumped up little pinhead who wants you to sign a contract of employment before you warp. Even the reward of becoming an expert in some aspect of the game has been diluted and watered down over recent years.

I don't know what the solution is but I do know it probably involves playing another, completely different game.

There are other explanations though, like it's an 8 year old game and it's exhausted it's primary market, or that the mistakes of Incarna wee already taking an effect. Without concrete proof, I'm not going to accept that adding incursions was the cause of the dropoff. And like I said, spikes around expansions were not uncommon, regardless of their content.

Honestly though, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Other than "grr themepark". What exactly is it you propose CCP do?

Uhhh, no. You're mixing two sets of behaviour. One is a natural increase in players that occurred even outside of expansion releases. This was already slowing down to a halt before Incursions. Then once the expansion hit there's a spike before it falls back to it's natural progression, which was down. You're simply seeing that at the time there was an expansion and blaming that for what is a natural decline of players in an old game which was then accelerated by the Incarna rage.

By your own graph, Apocrypha caused the population growth to stall. Sure there was a single spike, but the averages are flat and that's mirrored by eve-offline.

There's no knee-jerk, I'm just looking at the wider picture rather than going "well that happened at about the same time so it must be the cause".

To make them more entertaining in themselves. We know a lot of people come here seeking PvE content and we know a lot of them get bored. That's not surprising because there's like 20 missions in total. If the mechanics were more varied, they would be a lot more entertaining and so help keep the attention of people who like that type of content. Rewards would likely need to change, some up some down. Rewards for actually doing missions rather than blitzing should be better, and incursions should be reduced. Risk in missions through both risk of loss and risk of failure should be increased too. Agents shoulldn't be so static either, people should have to move about from time to time rather than just having a static missioning system that they always deploy from.

The first is disproven by the fact that it experienced growth after that. The second is put hugely into question by how it was still growing up until the expansion hit. The only difference is the expansion itself. Dismissing it as a cause is irrational.

The point I'm making is the one I've explained three times now: that Incursion is hard proof against the vague notion that “improved PvE” will help the game. Incursion was “improved PvE”; it hurt the game.

No. I'm comparing how Incursion was received compared to every other expansion up until that point. Incursion was unique in that it made the numbers go down — during an extended period — as opposed to continue trending upwards. They were trending upwards riiiiight up until the point Incursion hit, and then they headed downhill at an unprecedented rate.

Look again. There was a huge peak, yes, but then they went up pretty consistently up until the winter patch.

e: Ah, I see what you're missing. You're forgetting Unholy Rage and seeing this as a drop in general activity. No. Apocrypha was all growth. Even with Unholy rage, the rolling averages go up — you're just wrong about this one; accept it and move on.

Yes there is. I'm pointing to a single PvE-focus expansion as a clear example of why “improved PvE” is not the ultimate answer, as some would suggest. You immediately took this as meaning I was blaming PvE. You are still doing so. It is as knee-jerk as can be, because you seem to be utterly incapable of separating one instance from a whole. That fallacy of composition that you were accused of earlier? You're still doing it. You then take this refusal and expand it to not wanting to look at what was actually going on, dismissing very clear patters and inventing nonsensical or factually incorrect ones just to make it all fit with the singular vision you want.