These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#1381 - 2015-09-05 11:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
babyblue wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

I used to advocate for removing CONCORD intervention in HS Incursion systems altogether, but that would be a bit unfair towards players trying to escape the system (as all denizens will, since their native activities are nerfed by the systemwide modifiers), as well as unwitting capsuleers transitting throughnit.


I think the idea is to get more players, not lose the ones you have.


I dont think HS Incursions gets "more players", nor retains them, to the game.
Especially in terms of new players, (again, especially in HS) for whom Incursions are well beyond their capacity.
Also, Incursion systems just **** on new players, because they have to move out of their home for the duration due to the stsyem modifiers.
Much of most of the fleets is populated by other sector residents with seminal interests elsewhere.
This has readily been established as fact.

Furthermore though Incursions run continously throughout HS, they are few enough and far enough between, and the fleets that run them restricted enough in total population, that we are talking about some hundreds of players.

I understand and sympathise with their HS occurance as the sort of pinnacle of "safe" PvE that some players want.
A sort of WoW-style dungeon where an FC orders around a cooperative PvE fleet.
This is something they know and are familiar with.
I get that.

But as the population is small (systemically as to spawn availability/fleet size and according to skilling), as multiplied by the fact its mostly other sector players cashing in on HS rather than their native location, added to the fact its become "farmville" (which is fine for a time, but an indicator change is necessary), plus the inherent safety of the activity from player intervention thanks to unaffected CONCORD intervention and other HS mechanics (the Incursion system modifiers essentially stupidly only serve just to **** off and disenfranchise its other denizens), its not something I place a lot of game design value on.

I think there is more to be gained, in terms of universal player sourced content, by either removing Incursions from HS, or lowering the safety, than there is keeping it as the bored expat rich boys farmville/playground located in safe space that it currently is.

Even with the above, its occurance in HS is mostly just pissing on the local HS residents who's normal activities are disrupted when an Incursion happens to land on them, with no benefit to them. Its just "not good", more than its good.

I dont see how my proposals would harm the game, and would rather improve it in ways that matter.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#1382 - 2015-09-05 12:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


I dont think people, new and especially old, are leaving because Missions are boring and repetitive.
Really, if someone leaves the game because grinding Missions has become boring, its not the faultnof the activity, but of the player refusing to instead trynout something else of all that EVE offers.

If there are 20, or 200 missions, they will still get boring and repetivite.
The same applies, and always has, in every PvE game.
Dailies bore everyone to death.
Sure, some people leave other MMOs too because of the boredom of the daily grind.
But more dailies doesnt fix that. At all.

Sooner or later, you learn the sites, start min/maxin, picking/choosing, and boredom sets in.

Increasing reward does not increase their excitement or interest, just makes them grind them even more, min/max, pick/choose, and to the result of even more EVE inflation, and more boredom.

Your suggestion that doing the full site, instead of blitzing it, would somehow be "exciting", makes no sense.
Your suggestion just means more grind, more time, and more boredom.
Ironically, this would **** of Missioners immensly, if they have to grind through the whole site, rather than just blitzing it.
Your suggestions dont make any sense.


EVE has a solution to this.

More competition through player intervention.
That is where EVE offers excitement, diversity, competition and risk.

More, or more dynamic, missions, nor increased reward, wont fix the boredom problem.
People will still get bored in what is, and always boils down to:
-A daily grind against NPCs.

i understand your point.
Im all for PvE options in EVE, dor those that want them, either sporadicallybor as their own activity.
Im not against that.

Im just trying to express tonyou the truth latent in PvE, that invariably, always, it starts to get boring and become a grind.
The amount of mission options, the reward, the difficulty, the frequency, the dynamic of the engagement, all, sooner or later, still result in boredom.

The way to laterally increase the excitement difficulty, reward, and dynamicsnof them, is the EVE way.
By finding way to include other players interaction, and by increasing competition.

I mean this entirely without belligerence, despite our relationship.
Im trying to show that I understand what you mean, and I really do.

Do you see what I mean?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
babyblue
Solo Sovereignty
#1383 - 2015-09-05 12:31:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
More competition through player intervention.
That is where EVE offers excitement, diversity, competition and risk.


"player intervention" is minmaxed too and that doesn't involve anything anyone would describe as "competitive" - It's just the same old camping and ganking. This is a game engine that doesn't support any other kind of competitive play.

In, say, Elite Dangerous, being scrammed (dropped out of warp) is competitive in a true sense, because with skill you can manoeuvre yourself out of the attempt and "win" the interaction. In Eve the decision is made before you've even landed on grid because your vector intersects a game object you didn't know was there. In a lot of cases whether or not you escape is entirely down to your fit (paper, scissor, stone) and you made that decision before you even undocked.

You can't fix it. It's designed in from the start.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1384 - 2015-09-05 12:35:51 UTC
babyblue wrote:
In, say, Elite Dangerous, being scrammed (dropped out of warp) is competitive in a true sense, because with skill you can manoeuvre yourself out of the attempt and "win" the interaction. In Eve the decision is made before you've even landed on grid because your vector intersects a game object you didn't know was there.

…except that it's not very difficult to know if it's there, and manoeuvring yourself out of the attempt is entirely feasible — both before and after the fact.
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1385 - 2015-09-05 12:46:03 UTC


The superfleets have created a new "I win" button for Null. Every game gets boring once it has developed an "I win" button.

Instead a complicated set of choices, each with their own interesting outcomes, you're simply asked one question. Do you want to click the "I win" button? Or do you want to lose?

It might not be quite there yet, but it's definitely on its way. I guess it's human nature to want to try and create an "I win" button and press it, but that's where the MMO staff comes into play. Their role is to keep this aspect of the human nature of its players from succeeding in its goal.

Salvos Rhoska
#1386 - 2015-09-05 12:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
babyblue wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
More competition through player intervention.
That is where EVE offers excitement, diversity, competition and risk.


"player intervention" is minmaxed too and that doesn't involve anything anyone would describe as "competitive" - It's just the same old camping and ganking. This is a game engine that doesn't support any other kind of competitive play.

In, say, Elite Dangerous, being scrammed (dropped out of warp) is competitive in a true sense, because with skill you can manoeuvre yourself out of the attempt and "win" the interaction. In Eve the decision is made before you've even landed on grid because your vector intersects a game object you didn't know was there. In a lot of cases whether or not you escape is entirely down to your fit (paper, scissor, stone) and you made that decision before you even undocked.

You can't fix it. It's designed in from the start.


I cant speak to ED, as I havent played it.

If there are ideas/conceptsnthat can be transplanted or implemented into EVE, Im all ears.

Yes, you are correct, that much of EVE "competition" involves force of numbers (ganking) or camping.
Yes, you are also right that the mechanics (cant fully speak to the engine) directky lead to this, in large part, as a hardcoded element that supercedes attemps by players to create new kinds of content that would bypass that.

But I think you missed my central point.

Im saying that in EVE, with its particular mechanics/engine, the solution towards more player retention and excitement, is essentially risk/competition. Thats the entire underlying selling point and niche of EVE.

It is to these, and their strengths that design should align.

More PvE wont fix retention (though Im not against it, as in mynpost to Lucas).
I am strongly suggesting that morenplayer sourced risk/competition in PvE also, as throughout EVE, is exactly that which will fix retention and maintain excitement throughout all of EVEs activities, as well as throughout players new and vet.

The MMO market is at a junction.
Most games mitigate risk and competition, and are successful.
But that is not EVE.

EVE needs to stick to its strengths, and whatt defines it from other games.
Those are risk and player competition.
Im all for more PvE options and development, but ONLY if they include risk and competition.
Otherwise, whats the point.
EVE can never be as good a PvE game as the other dedicated ones out there.
It cant win that fight.

Instead, it should do what it does best, and include that especially into PvE too.

I want to see suggestions of how to make PvE more exciting, as a result of player risk/competition.
I want to see suggestions of new forms of PvE, that involve player risk/competition in new ways.
I want to see PvE players hands shaking at their keyboards and screaming in delight about how even PvE missioning is more exciting in EVE, than in any bullshit dailies boredom other games offer.
I want to see them interacting and competing/cooperating with other players in this fantastic sandbox for their goals.
I want to hear them say that EVE is the most exciting PvE (PvP) game ever, and that, THANKS TO OTHER PLAYERS involved with them in it.

Is that possible? I think so.
Lets find out how.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
babyblue
Solo Sovereignty
#1387 - 2015-09-05 13:23:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:

…except that it's not very difficult to know if it's there, and manoeuvring yourself out of the attempt is entirely feasible — both before and after the fact.


If that were true, nobody would bother using them.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1388 - 2015-09-05 13:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Tippia wrote:


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.



Uh oh. Time to debate wit hTippia.

This one is where some rephrasing or more analysis is needed on your part.

Incursions in itself didn't hurt eve. Poor execution and simplicity resulting it being a farm did. They excluded the one thing most of all people who like to pve wanted. Unpredictability.

That is it, no more, no less. The problem with PvE is simply that it is ALL on rails from heading to fixed mission hubs, through the sites. It is what killed epic arcs. Sorry, we cannot do them because the good sites are all fixed locations easily camped in lowsec instead of making them generate like an expedition.

In addition, the design of PvE has it naturally distance itself from PvP lifestyle instead of bringing the player closer to that end of playstyle. Incursions... had... it til the meta got refined. Drifters potentially as well. Get people liking PvB (bots) so that way the transition to PvP is near nothing.


Quote:
“improved PvE” is not the ultimate answer, as some would suggest.


It actually is, but the PvE for a game like eve needs to be a tool to integrate different styles of games. Much like PvE tutorials for PvP games. or how the PvE in Wow brings you deeper into the pvp areas.

We have been overlooking something that is huge for eve. It is an experience. If there is something that can keep people in for a long time, it is an extention pve that really draws a player in. Let say that a good and balanced skill tree for combat takes.... 6 months to get access to T1 and fits from frigate to battleship.

What is needed is essentially some sort of more random and procedural PvE setup that exposes players to PvP style gameplay and can integrate them. A long term epic arc. Have agents contact in response to masteries. So player training and suddenly a no timer mission pops up for the next stage.

Eve needs more experiences that feel like this. Too bad the combat is extremely basic for this site.

http://i.imgur.com/1Uv8td1.png

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#1389 - 2015-09-05 13:50:13 UTC
Holy crap, what the hell happened on September 4? Lol

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1390 - 2015-09-05 13:53:31 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Holy crap, what the hell happened on September 4? Lol


Don't think anything..... The thread seems exactly how I left it?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1391 - 2015-09-05 14:06:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
babyblue wrote:
If that were true, nobody would bother using them.
Yes they would.
Just because there is a counter doesn't mean that the method is worthless. Just because the method is effective doesn't mean the counters are worthless.

We are talking about two sides trying to outsmart or outmanoeuvre each other — there are no absolutes like the ones you're implying. If there were, neither side would exist in the game because they'd be laughably overpowered and would have to be removed.

Markus Reese wrote:
This one is where some rephrasing or more analysis is needed on your part.

Incursions in itself didn't hurt eve. Poor execution and simplicity resulting it being a farm did. They excluded the one thing most of all people who like to pve wanted. Unpredictability.
The phrasing comes directly from the post I responded to, and there's a reason why I use such general terms. Exactly why Incursion did what it did doesn't matter to that end — what matters is that it was, on paper, what the poster was asking for and it had the exact opposite effect of what is often assumed when that argument is made.

You're not wrong, and I haven't argued that point — I'm once again simply saying that there is improve and there is improved; there is PvE and there is PvE. None of it is an automatic net improvement to the game as a whole. It has to be incorporated properly and improve the right aspects, and it needs to be fit for purpose, or it will hurt far more than it will help. Purely on principle, I can actually see worse PvE being good for the game, but it's not exactly an avenue I'd pursue or even suggest.
babyblue
Solo Sovereignty
#1392 - 2015-09-05 14:24:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
babyblue wrote:
If that were true, nobody would bother using them.
Yes they would.
Just because there is a counter doesn't mean that the method is worthless. Just because the method is effective doesn't mean the counters are worthless.

We are talking about two sides trying to outsmart or outmanoeuvre each other — there are no absolutes like the ones you're implying. If there were, neither side would exist in the game because they'd be laughably overpowered and would have to be removed.


Yes, but the point I'm making is somewhat broader. What forms of competitive play does the game engine support? So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1393 - 2015-09-05 14:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
babyblue wrote:


Yes, but the point I'm making is somewhat broader. What forms of competitive play does the game engine support? So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.


I don't

But what I think when somebody says competitive PvE is something that we talked years ago in F&I where an event happens, and different clues so to speak appear around new eden. Only one ending so somebody gets the prize. Engine generated so could be anywhere, any time. Functions like an epic quest and draws people together. What starts solo might have randoms and corps from all around join up for big final fights similar to the Incursion HQ.

Best player wins. Oh, and we met a bunch of other players too, had fleet combat. I want more fleet combat, eventually into low,null, wh space.

Edit: But never know if it will be a major event. Works like an escalation.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1394 - 2015-09-05 14:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
babyblue wrote:
What forms of competitive play does the game engine support?
Combat, competition over resources, score attack, dexterity tests, puzzles, popularity contests, betting and speculation, auctions… off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of. Ooh — optimisation challenges, of course, in at least three different flavours.

Quote:
So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.
Not really, no.
babyblue
Solo Sovereignty
#1395 - 2015-09-05 14:56:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
babyblue wrote:
What forms of competitive play does the game engine support?
Combat, competition over resources, score attack, dexterity tests, puzzles, popularity contests, betting and speculation, auctions… off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of. Ooh — optimisation challenges, of course, in at least three different flavours.

Quote:
So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.
Not really, no.


There's a lot of competition out there for peoples attention and hard-earned $. Your problem is Eve does none of the things you've listed all that well.
Salvos Rhoska
#1396 - 2015-09-05 15:14:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
babyblue wrote:
So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.

What exactly and specifically does that mean then in practice?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1397 - 2015-09-05 15:18:30 UTC
babyblue wrote:
There's a lot of competition out there for peoples attention and hard-earned $. Your problem is Eve does none of the things you've listed all that well.

It does them far better than anything else on the market is able to, or anything in development promises to.
babyblue
Solo Sovereignty
#1398 - 2015-09-05 15:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: babyblue
Tippia wrote:
babyblue wrote:
There's a lot of competition out there for peoples attention and hard-earned $. Your problem is Eve does none of the things you've listed all that well.

It does them far better than anything else on the market is able to, or anything in development promises to.


Well that's a matter of opinion and I don't really believe that fans of something are the best people to ask about why that something isn't all that popular. The self-selecting survey (people with active subs able to post on a forum) is a somewhat biased sample.

To be honest you'd be better off googling something like "why I quit Eve" (ignoring Eve Forum dramas) than arguing it out here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1399 - 2015-09-05 15:25:46 UTC
babyblue wrote:
Well that's a matter of opinion and I don't really believe that fans of something are the best people to ask about why that something isn't all that popular.

Far better than people who have no clue about the game and who don't know what is and isn't possible or available…
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1400 - 2015-09-05 15:32:01 UTC
Making highsec safer will bring about the turnaround we all need...

Or so I'm told.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?