These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2781 - 2015-12-10 13:31:27 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
sero Hita wrote:
Do you have a quote on this? That PvE has the lowest retention population wide?



Even if it were true, "PVP centric game has trouble keeping its PVE players". I'm not seeing a problem there.

EVE is a PVP centric game in all its facets, you CAN PVE here to some extend but it's never going to be good at it and while you can hope/ask for improvements it makes zero sense to ask for a shift of focus. Would EVE change focus then it would have to compete with all the other MMOs/games out there and CCP would have to be brain dead to even attempt it (oh... wait).

So if someone joined EVE in 2008, does nothing but PVE but somehow still doesn't know the first thing about mission baiting or fitting a ship then that means said person has not read the forums, not read any guides, not interacted with people who have a clue and not engaged their brains. Those people are going to struggle and they pretty much have 3 options

- accept it and keep doing what you're doing
- adapt and stop being dumb
- leave

There is no fourth option. "Demanding changes through drama queening and dumb logic" doesn't work.


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2782 - 2015-12-10 13:38:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Don't forget that PvPers do PvE, but PvErs don't do PvP.

Tbh this is all that's needed to realize which type of player has more value ...



Bingo.




PvPr claims that his e-peenis is bigger than yours; the evidence is that he says so. More news at 11. Roll

Further reading

From the blog linked above: "(...) Can I go up to someone and, with a straight face, tell them that a game in which the average player in a 3-hour play session will most likely only kill NPCs and not kill another player or have another player kill him, is a PvP game?" -Nosy Gamer.

As I said, what companies advertise (Empty roads! Exotic locations!) is very different than the average user experience (Traffic jams! Ugly suburbs!).

Maybe CCP shoudl start developing EVE based on what players pay for (PvE) and do (PvE) rather than hope that more PvP is going to sort those decaying user counts.


It takes a special lack of understanding to somehow tie how much npcs get killed vs how many players get killed and then (using voodoo logic) extract from that how much PVP is done. You have to be really... special to think that makes sense and use that as an argument. Also, your terrible logic and agenda are showing again.
Avvy
Doomheim
#2783 - 2015-12-10 13:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2784 - 2015-12-10 13:53:20 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Don't forget that PvPers do PvE, but PvErs don't do PvP.

Tbh this is all that's needed to realize which type of player has more value ...



Bingo.




PvPr claims that his e-peenis is bigger than yours; the evidence is that he says so. More news at 11. Roll

Further reading

From the blog linked above: "(...) Can I go up to someone and, with a straight face, tell them that a game in which the average player in a 3-hour play session will most likely only kill NPCs and not kill another player or have another player kill him, is a PvP game?" -Nosy Gamer.

As I said, what companies advertise (Empty roads! Exotic locations!) is very different than the average user experience (Traffic jams! Ugly suburbs!).

Maybe CCP shoudl start developing EVE based on what players pay for (PvE) and do (PvE) rather than hope that more PvP is going to sort those decaying user counts.


Do you have some sort of statistic which gives details of the people who "only" do pve, and people who pay a subscription to pve against those who pay subscriptions to pvp? who brings more money to ccp, the players who only do pve, never lose a ship and pay for gametime with plex bought for isk or the pvp'ers who pay subs, dont do pve and buy plex with rl cash to buy ships they lose everyday?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Solecist Project
#2785 - 2015-12-10 13:54:54 UTC

What a waste of time...

Instead of talking here, we should take matters into our own hands.
Sadly people don't work that way nowadays.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2786 - 2015-12-10 13:55:47 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.


every business has a target audience, if you try and cater the game away from the target audience which it has been acustomed to for years then your business is going to die fast

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2787 - 2015-12-10 13:56:06 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:

What a waste of time...

Instead of talking here, we should take matters into our own hands.
Sadly people don't work that way nowadays.


Hasn't logged in.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2788 - 2015-12-10 13:58:44 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.


You should ask Sony about that, with SWG.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2789 - 2015-12-10 14:04:25 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.



Sure, and that's the business' concern, not ours. And yet many people try to use the 'appeal to CCPs wallet' tack to support what amount to self serving change ideas. In an ironic twist, the people who tell CCP to change the way they do things if they want their business to survive are telling them the exact wrong thing, kind of like this famous example.

Quote:
Walmart Declutters Aisles Per Customers' Request, Then Loses $1.85 Billion In Sales
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2790 - 2015-12-10 14:04:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
I read that blog and I don't necessarily agree with NoizyGamer. If you're only going to characterize combat as pvp, then sure, you're going to come to a very different conclusion than I would. The problem is that, in EVE, not everyone competes with lasers and bombs. Even if it were true that more folks compete over resources, market orders, and anomolies than territory or opportunity- it still does not negate the fact that they are competing. And, while the enjoyment level of these various activities may be relative, competing is PVP. So, yes, EVE is a PvP game. It may not be a space combat simulator, but it is most definitely a PvP game.

YK
Avvy
Doomheim
#2791 - 2015-12-10 14:05:54 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.


every business has a target audience, if you try and cater the game away from the target audience which it has been acustomed to for years then your business is going to die fast



Very true, but EvE tries to cater to more than one market. Question is which one is the most successful.
Avvy
Doomheim
#2792 - 2015-12-10 14:11:18 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The problem is that in the past, "drama queening" has sometimes worked. You and i know that in a sane world there is no forth option, but to people who want to change things (even though they don't consider what that change means), they think there is.

I have always found it perplexing that games exist that would cater perfectly to the kinds of people who play EVE and beg for it's focus to change (hell, i play Star Trek Online some myself, and Elite: Dangerous is a thing now). And yet they won't play them, It's like they'd rather be miserable in EVE than happy elsewhere.



I always used to think from a game perspective players should always adapt to the game, not the game adapting to the players.

But a game is also someone's business and as a business it has to adapt to its players/customers if it intends to remain a healthy business.


You should ask Sony about that, with SWG.



Never played it but have heard about it.

That's because they didn't do their research properly.

Like a computer you put crap data in, you'll get crap data out.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2793 - 2015-12-10 14:19:06 UTC
they all need each other to survive so its not a question of which one is more successful, you could argue pvp is more successful as its what they use to market the game, "no great story started with an SOE agent" sorta thing

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Solecist Project
#2794 - 2015-12-10 14:20:38 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

What a waste of time...

Instead of talking here, we should take matters into our own hands.
Sadly people don't work that way nowadays.


Hasn't logged in.

What? Me?
Hey, you do known I've been playing a lot, do you? :p

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2795 - 2015-12-10 14:20:52 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

PvPr claims that his e-peenis is bigger than yours; the evidence is that he says so. More news at 11. Roll


Wow are you sure, you should attack other people on not bringing evidence?

You have btw. still not provided the quote/ link/ data to support the foundation of all your conclusions, that i asked for in my last post:

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

The main source of lost players is PvE, which is both the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization.


Having problems finding any source, prooving this Big smile ? Was i really right in my suspicion that you extrapolated some twarted interpretation of the NPE presentation from fan fest, to count for the whole population?

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Avvy
Doomheim
#2796 - 2015-12-10 14:25:36 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
they all need each other to survive so its not a question of which one is more successful, you could argue pvp is more successful as its what they use to market the game, "no great story started with an SOE agent" sorta thing



That's my feeling too, that the markets are fairly well split.

Which has left them an issue when trying to keep everyone happy.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2797 - 2015-12-10 14:33:22 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

What a waste of time...

Instead of talking here, we should take matters into our own hands.
Sadly people don't work that way nowadays.


Hasn't logged in.

What? Me?
Hey, you do known I've been playing a lot, do you? :p


No I mean... that one.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2798 - 2015-12-10 14:36:19 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
they all need each other to survive so its not a question of which one is more successful, you could argue pvp is more successful as its what they use to market the game, "no great story started with an SOE agent" sorta thing



That's my feeling too, that the markets are fairly well split.

Which has left them an issue when trying to keep everyone happy.


Hey, that's a life experience moment! I've learned that the way to keep everyone happy is to stop worrying about if everyone is happy lol. If you do the best job you can, the people capable of happiness will be happy, while the people incapable of being happy with anything will continue griping about everything (as if their unhappiness has an external cause when in reality, they are just unhappy people to begin with).
Solecist Project
#2799 - 2015-12-10 14:44:17 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

PvPr claims that his e-peenis is bigger than yours; the evidence is that he says so. More news at 11. Roll


Wow are you sure, you should attack other people on not bringing evidence?

You have btw. still not provided the quote/ link/ data to support the foundation of all your conclusions, that i asked for in my last post:

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

The main source of lost players is PvE, which is both the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization.


Having problems finding any source, prooving this Big smile ? Was i really right in my suspicion that you extrapolated some twarted interpretation of the NPE presentation from fan fest, to count for the whole population?

Please don't expect such people to apply common sense.

Obviously people are completely seperated in PvP and PvE ...
... because pure PvE people work that way.

Evidence for common sense...


Oh btw, I didn't mean shooting them.
These cowards wouldn't undock anyway.

I mean doing CCPs job until we force them to make sure we don't have to.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Avvy
Doomheim
#2800 - 2015-12-10 14:46:43 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
they all need each other to survive so its not a question of which one is more successful, you could argue pvp is more successful as its what they use to market the game, "no great story started with an SOE agent" sorta thing



That's my feeling too, that the markets are fairly well split.

Which has left them an issue when trying to keep everyone happy.


Hey, that's a life experience moment! I've learned that the way to keep everyone happy is to stop worrying about if everyone is happy lol. If you do the best job you can, the people capable of happiness will be happy, while the people incapable of being happy with anything will continue griping about everything (as if their unhappiness has an external cause when in reality, they are just unhappy people to begin with).




Life experience has taught me that you can't make everyone happy.

So you have to settle for the majority.



PvE and PvP players, you will never make happy when they share the same universe because they require different things. So all you can do is your best, which is what CCP seems to be trying to do.