These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3961 - 2016-01-18 15:13:21 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
The thing with Indahmawar, is she uses these 62% as leverage to push through her ideas. Just look at her sig.
Yes, it's called a hyperbole. It's an exaggeration of the facts to make a point. The point she is making is that CCP focus heavily on PvP aspects of the game like the abomination they call the new sov system while PvE is rarely iterated on, and many players don't like that. There's a viewpoint that the current roadmap isn't one that is supported by all players, and that improvements to PvE are needed too. CCP would seem to agree as they have started looking at PvE improvements to roll out in the next few years.

sero Hita wrote:
So when you these statistics to make claims that EVE is dying because CCP ignores 62% of the EVE population, it is mireading the data.
Perhaps, but the points being made are "EvE population is dropping" and "I believe this is due to lack of focus on PvE". Both of those are valid viewpoints whether you agree or not.

sero Hita wrote:
If you go back to the post with the 1.4m sales for E:D, I also asked her, what the point was with just throwing these data into the discussion, without bringing any context. Because there was no context, i took it as a "lol, there are 1.4 mill people playing ED because they care for PVE activties" post.
I imagine it was a "This is the primary competition for EVE seeing as EVE was built using Elite as inspiration, and that's a lot of sales for such a new game". I wouldn't say E:D is that heavy on classic PvE, it's pretty PvP-like even when NPCs are interdicting you.

sero Hita wrote:
This is an opinion, which is okay. The problem is in the insinuation that some of these people would have subscriped and been fine with the other parts of EVE, if just there was more PVE.
I'm sure some people would. There's a large number of players put off of games when they can be easily trolled by the existing vets. It's one of the biggest complaints against survival games like Rust. I'd not be surprised at all if more people would stay if the PvE experience was fuller.

sero Hita wrote:
regarding the drop the ACU, all your reasons are probably all true to some extend. i like that you did not only include one like many. It could also just be that people generally are online less than what they used to, but still subscribed. For example if everyone would play two hours a day, instead of four the ACU would drop. Which is my problem with the whole "EVE is dying" thing. Way too many use ACU as an measurement of subscribers, when in reality it is an convoluted function depending on if the players are online and how long.
Well I certainly know from my own experience that the game is less entertaining to me than it used to be which has led me to cancel subscription on 12 of my accounts. ACU isn't a perfect measure but it's a fairly good indicator.

"Btw. read Tippias replies"
As a general rule I skim read Tippias responses at most because the vast majority of the time they are troll posts.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Leonerd Dice
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3962 - 2016-01-18 15:14:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Leonerd Dice
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Hey, is this the thread where we all wave our favorite theories to save EVE from Impending Doom?

Then, here's mine!

Improve vastly the quality of highsec solo gameplay. Since that's what 80% of noobs end doing, and even as the churn rate is crazy it also is what 50% of players do exclusively, it should be the single most important thing for CCP.



Years of trying to cater to these kinds of people have resulted in the current situation. Here we see the power of self-interest, because what the above post is saying is 'hey, there is water coming into the ship, I like water, so lets turn on a fountain so that water gets into the ship faster!".

CCP has been on a crusade the past few years destroying what made EVE great in an attempt to 'broaden it's appeal'. When i started there just wasn't much PVE (there were missions, some static plexes around, COSMOS, lvl 5 missions were new, Marauders were new, Anomalies were random everywhere because of no upgrade system etc). CCP has literally STUFFED the game with PVE since then, Incursions, new missions, different focus for missions like epic arcs and pirate epic arcs, Wormhole PVE with new AI and mechanics, system upgrades in null sec, fleshed out npc factions like SOE and Mordus, "Clone" ships that drop tags, a mini game for exploration, new types of exploration like ghost sites, burner missions, and now Drifters.

And CCP has added way more safety to the game. A clean install of EVE Online will have a veteran declining so many pop ups and 'opportunities' it's crazy. Missions 'Guide' you, anomalies tell you how to get the escalation, mining ships have 'anchor' rigs and got ehp buffed a while back, CCP tweaked CONCORD several times, and even made faction police unbeatable (manipulating faction police used to be very fun in the early FW days).

The highlighted word above is the nail in the coffin. It seems like every time someone seems to have some fun or do something creative, CCP nerfs it. They advertised a game as "Be the Villain" then spent years nerfing villains...which did little but nerf people like me (anti-Villains). They advertised HUGE FLEET BATTLES then gave us Aegis. They advertised FREEDOM and have spent years developing constraints and nerfing freedom (because freedom is messy).



If you think EVE is dying you'd go back and look at when it wasn't dying, and advocate CCP do THAT again(concentrate on getting people to group together, for some to be villains, and for no one to ever feel 'safe'), not continue down the path that has led to the current situation. The path of trying to please those who can't ever be pleased, the Ishtanchuk Fazmarais of the world.


Ah, I don't think you expected to see me here. This is my 4th time coming back to Eve. The first thing I noticed about Eve when I first started playing was the repetitiveness of this game. Now there's a lot of games people say that about. But were talking about genuine repetition here. I remember doing PVE quests when I first started playing because that's the natural direction the game takes you in. This was back when the game still had a tutorial. But what I noticed very quick, and tried my HARDEST to ignore that you were literally, literally doing the same quests over and over. I was in a certain system, and I was doing level X missions. I don't know how many I did but lets say 10+. When the missions literally started to repeat. I started doing them by memory. I thought it's time to go to a different system so I did. And again, jump gates, number of rats, the name of the rats, what the base looked like. It was repeating again. I thought I had to go to a different region where there were different rats to get some different quests/missions. AND AGAIN, the exact same freaking quests. I can say now I've found enjoyment in other parts of the game. But I haven't returned to PVE. They absolutely need to work on the missions, and the rats. And their difficulty and their rewards, and their looks. The comment you are replying too is absolutely right. More quests, and more things to do isn't making the game casual. Less quests and less things to do for more reward is. That's what happened to WoW.

I know where you're going, and you're trying to stay ahead of the curve so your favourite game doesn't die. But this is a valid thing that needs to change about the game. And probably has for awhile. If there are less people the play with, then the NPC's need to become a lot more interesting.
Thorian Baalnorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3963 - 2016-01-18 15:18:11 UTC
Eve is not dying. It has had a subscription increase almost every single year since it became live.

Everyone in Eve PVPs, Everyone in eve PVEs, 62% of players can be either/or in that statement.

Most players dont like major changes to games at first because they are use to playing a certain way. And major changes mean they have to do something different. So really most players may not like a change because its radical. Like the citadel thing... destroyable stations. What happens to all my stuff? Is it like a POS/ wreck and can be looted by others? I wont be able to stay docked and retrieve or firesale my stuff? Thats scary, dont like it, im moving to WH if that happens!.

Sometimes you are the squirrel and sometimes you are the nut. Today, you are the nut and the squirrel is hungry.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3964 - 2016-01-18 15:19:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course there is
No. Conventional wisdom is anything but. It is just a second-hand assumption. It is exactly why we're asking for proof: because without it, we have nothing, and conventional wisdom doesn't fill the gap.

Quote:
asking for proof of the claim is making the assumption that it's considered to be false and thus requires proof.
…which is the correct à priori assumption to make in the absence of proof.

Quote:
What was mangled?
All the parts you changed. Had you not been so wilfully ignorant, you would have seen me ask the same of people I agree with; you would have seen me accept evidence if provided; you would have seen me demonstrate its invalidity if I thought it was invalid. Yes, I often do win by default, but that's because I keep demanding proof, not until they become bored, but until it becomes clear that they have none and they either slink off or admit it outright.

Quote:
OK, here we go back down the "everything is PvP" route.
You know why? Because everything is.

Quote:
Most PvP (of the pew pew variety, since let's face it we're talking about shooting players vs other activities here) will involve HP.
Nah. Most combat will not even involve the two parties being on the same grid for long enough to lock each other up. There is more to combat than “pistols at dawn” — two people facing off against each other on the high street. In most cases, both sides will very conclude that one of them has an advantage, at which point the underdog will try to get away. All of that chasing is pew-pew-variety PvP — maybe involving dozens of people over a couple of manhours — and at the end of it all, it may just amount to 4k HP worth of frigates lost.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#3965 - 2016-01-18 15:20:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
the statistic isnt "62% are pve'ers", the statistic means 62% do pve, there is a distinct difference here, im a pvp'er but if im bored or rl poor ill simply run a few level 5's or ded's, that doesnt make me a pve'er it just means i do pve as well as pvp so i would also fall into that 62% statistic, however 100% of people do pvp so we should focus more on that.
I don't disagree and I'm not claiming it does, I just find it laughable that when someone states something people disagree with they demand evidence yet when those same people turn around and claim the majority of the game is PvPers. You say yourself here "100% of people do PvP", well in that case "100% of people do PvE" too, since I've not yet met someone that's never killed a single rat, been shot by a gate gun or bought from an NPC buy order.

And all of it is irrelevant. The question really comes down to: Do you think PvE should be improved? CCP think yes.


I agree pve should be improved, and it has already been worked on, the statistic 62% are pve'ers is just an example how people twist and change things to fit there own agenda, thats why people ask for evidence because people know the statistic is not 100% accurate

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*

Leonerd Dice
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3966 - 2016-01-18 15:26:07 UTC
My suggestion is filling up each system with more stuff. Like hard to get asteroid belts, more missions, harder rats, harder sites, more sites, etc. A LOT more unique missions. More ore types, more ship types. MORE MORE MORE. If possible. But not, I repeat NOT (DO NOT) Make it EASY EASY EASY. Unless you're like World of Warcraft. and tried to dump it's own players into the more profitable games of the time, like Hearthstone and Heros of the Storm. Diablo 3. whatever. CCP you guys don't have any other games for your players to fall down to and play. Don't lose your players. Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3967 - 2016-01-18 15:27:02 UTC
Effort-post pt.1

The first problem with the graph Indahmawar uses is that it's for visual effect rather than precision. So if you'll permit, we'll use this one instead. It's supposed to be the same data, but less “prettyfied”.

What this allows us to do is reverse-engineer the numbers behind it. We can simply measure the size of each data point, which the final presentation icons don't really allow for. It's dirty and ugly and imprecise, but it's as good as it gets short of CCP giving us the raw numbers. We also have an immediate problem of interpretation: is the relative size a matter of area or of radius? Picking the former when the latter is the case will create exaggerated differences further on down the line; picking the latter when the former is the case means the differences will be incorrectly understated.

For this, I'm picking the radius interpretation, meaning any differences we see may be larger than what we calculate.

Measuring the blobs and normalising the whole thing gives us this matrix (the two time measurements each have their own individual normalisation since they're continuous events the way the rest of the stuff on the list is):

                 Pro    Entr   Agg    Soc    Trad
--------------------------------------------------
Logon Days       1.00   0.864  0.773  0.591  0.591
Session Length   1.00   0.957  0.739  0.587  0.652
--------------------------------------------------
Undocking        0.96   0.96   0.88   0.78   0.92
Highsec Travel   0.76   0.88   0.60   0.60   0.84
Nullsec Travel   0.64   0.32   0.54   0.36   0.16
WH Travel        0.84   0.56   0.54   0.34   0.20
Missions         0.56   0.80   0.44   0.48   0.68
Mining           0.54   0.76   0.36   0.38   0.56
S&I              0.68   0.88   0.20   0.26   0.40
Trading          0.92   0.92   0.54   0.36   0.68
Connected        0.88   0.60   0.74   0.70   0.38
Chat             1.00   0.88   0.88   0.88   0.56
Fleet            0.80   0.54   0.60   0.40   0.32
Logi             0.92   0.68   0.68   0.30   0.32
Tackling         0.76   0.54   0.66   0.38   0.34
Kills & Decs     0.80   0.12   0.68   0.16   0.08
Assists          1.00   0.40   0.96   0.30   0.16


Neat. So what? We can get a better sense how a “player” in each segment engages in each of the activities, relative to each other and relative to other activities. We can see that everyone does everything to some degree — not very shocking. We can kind of interpret these numbers as “percentages of maximum attention” or some such: how much does a player in a given category do of a specific activity relative to the maximum attention any one activity can have? So an entrepreneur gives missions an 80%-of-max level of attention.

But above all, we can now start doing aggregates. How much is each activity done (since that's the point of contention)? Here is where the percentages Indahmawar misinterprets can actually be of use: we can use them to spread these attention scores across all players, weighing each score against how many people are in that category, and sum the whole thing up (and scale the whole thing up by ×1,000 to make it easier to read).

                 Pro    Entr   Agg    Soc    Trad   ∑
---------------------------------------------------------
Undocking        288    240     70     93    230    922
Highsec Travel   228    220     48     72    210    778
Nullsec Travel   192     80     43     43     40    398
WH Travel        252    140     43     41     50    526
Missions         168    200     35     57    170    630
Mining           162    190     28     45    140    566
S&I              204    220     16     31    100    571
Trading          276    230     43     43    170    762
Connected        264    150     59     84     95    652
Chat             300    220     70    105    140    836
Fleet            240    135     48     48     80    551
Logi             276    170     54     36     80    616
Tackling         228    135     53     46     85    547
Kills & Decs     240     30     54     19     20    363
Assists          300    100     77     36     40    553


The rightmost column gives us an activity score for each activity: how much attention does it get from each player category and how common is that category? Missions score 630 pts, in no small part because professionals are plentiful and do them a lot; kill assists reaches 553, in no small part because entrepreneurs are plentiful, meaning they contribute more than the aggressors do, simply through sheer numbers. Trading and chatting (and undocking) are at the top of the list — it's almost as if this was an economy-based MMO or something.

This is probably as close as we can get to “how many percent do X” — out of a maximum score of 1,000 each activity gets some fraction of that from the combined attention given by each player category. But even then, it's a very gross misrepresentation of “doing” something in-game. By that interpretation, just going by the score would suggest that almost one quarter of the players never trade, which is obviously nonsense.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3968 - 2016-01-18 15:27:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Effort-post pt.2

We can do more fun stuff. Professionals spend a lot of time in-game; traditionalists do not. Is it really fair that the traditionalists score contribute as much as the professionals do, even though they're not around as much? What happens if we scale everything by the respective player category's (normalised) logon and session stats?

                 Pro    Entr   Agg    Soc    Trad   ∑
---------------------------------------------------------
Undocking        288    198     40     32     89    648
Highsec Travel   228    182     27     25     81    543
Nullsec Travel   192     66     25     15     15    313
WH Travel        252    116     25     14     19    426
Missions         168    165     20     20     66    439
Mining           162    157     16     16     54    405
S&I              204    182      9     11     39    444
Trading          276    190     25     15     66    571
Connected        264    124     34     29     37    487
Chat             300    182     40     37     54    613
Fleet            240    112     27     17     31    426
Logi             276    140     31     12     31    491
Tackling         228    112     30     16     33    418
Kills & Decs     240     25     31      7      8    310
Assists          300     83     44     12     15    454


It certainly evens the field, largely because it turns out that the do-everything crowd spends a lot of time online, which means their influence (on everything) is proportionally higher, whereas the do-one-thing crowd that only log in rarely aren't counted as much — they may create some spikes for a given activity, but they're not active enough that it makes any real difference on the score.

You can interpret this in a couple of ways: one is, how do we get the low-engagement people to engage more? How do we get their scores up? Another is, people spend the time they spend and there's little we can do about that, but what can we do to improve the low-scoring activities? Why aren't they as popular as some of the others? And of course, a third is to look at the high-scorers and say that this is obviously what people spend the most time on, so this is where improvements would be most worth-while.

We can also ask the exact opposite question: how do people spend their time — what's the attention score per player time slice (i.e. per session length per login amount)?

                 Pro    Entr   Agg    Soc    Trad   ∑
---------------------------------------------------------
Undocking        288    291    123    270    597    1568
Highsec Travel   228    266     84    208    545    1331
Nullsec Travel   192     97     76    125    104     593
WH Travel        252    169     76    118    130     744
Missions         168    242     62    166    441    1079
Mining           162    230     50    131    363     937
S&I              204    266     28     90    259     848
Trading          276    278     76    125    441    1196
Connected        264    182    104    242    247    1038
Chat             300    266    123    304    363    1357
Fleet            240    163     84    138    208     833
Logi             276    206     95    104    208     888
Tackling         228    163     92    131    221     836
Kills & Decs     240     36     95     55     52     479
Assists          300    121    134    104    104     763


The effect of this then is obviously the opposite too: the low-activity players' scores count higher because they cram whatever attention they give into a smaller slice, whereas the high-activity players spread all their long hours out to neatly fit each activity in there. The aggressors finally out-kill-assist the entrepreneurs because, while there are few aggressors and they don't spend all that much time online, they're very kill-happy during the hours they're on, whereas with the entrepreneurs, the exact opposite is true.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3969 - 2016-01-18 15:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Eve is not dying. It has had a subscription increase almost every single year since it became live.
Yeah, right up until they stopped publishing subscription numbers. I wonder why they did that?

Tippia wrote:
No. Conventional wisdom is anything but. It is just a second-hand assumption. It is exactly why we're asking for proof: because without it, we have nothing, and conventional wisdom doesn't fill the gap.
But you're only asking for proof because you are assuming the opposite to be generally accepted as true. If someone says "EvE is about PvP" you don't demand proof of that, yet that is just as much of an assumption as any other. You make demands, like asking for proof of something said in passing or repeatedly asking an unrelated question as a way to disrupt the conversation.

Tippia wrote:
you would have seen me
I've seen you, a lot. I've watched you repeat the exact same thing time and again, it's pointless, it's boring and it's non-constructive. It's why I have no interest in attempting to have serious discussions with you.

Tippia wrote:
You know why? Because everything is.
OK, then the PvP that is known as missions needs to be improved because it's currently too static and terrible. When you start doing this you are literally arguing about the label, not about the activity. It's no surprise from you though as it's yet another one of your diversionary tactics to derail the points being made.

Lan Wang wrote:
I agree pve should be improved, and it has already been worked on, the statistic 62% are pve'ers is just an example how people twist and change things to fit there own agenda, thats why people ask for evidence because people know the statistic is not 100% accurate
It's not supposed to be 100% accurate, like the ACU, dotlan statistics or the HP stats it's a quick and dirty method of getting a feel for how many people do what. If you agree PvE should be worked on, then what's the argument? Purely that someone used an inaccurate stat to put across a point that you agree with?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3970 - 2016-01-18 15:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
But you're only asking for proof because you are assuming the opposite to be generally accepted as true.
No. I'm asking for proof because the claim doesn't seem to have any basis in reality. Or, in this case, I'm asking for proof because I know that the supposed evidence says pretty much the exact opposite of what the person in question is trying to make it say… but shhh! 🙊

Quote:
If someone says "EvE is about PvP" you don't demand proof of that
That's because I've seen the proof. When I asked about it, it was provided to me with little fanfare.

Quote:
I've seen you, a lot.
…which is why I label you wilfully ignorant.

Quote:
OK, then the PvP that is known as missions needs to be improved because it's currently too static and terrible.
I agree. Can theft should no longer be s-flagged and it should be made a lot easier to find and invade someone's mission and steal all their stuff (preferably including LP and agent rewards). The AI changes put a damper on mission invasions too, but I rather like what it did to rats so I'm not sure how that one could be fixed.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3971 - 2016-01-18 16:10:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I agree. Can theft should no longer be s-flagged and it should be made a lot easier to find and invade someone's mission and steal all their stuff (preferably including LP and agent rewards). The AI changes put a damper on mission invasions too, but I rather like what it did to rats so I'm not sure how that one could be fixed.
I disagree. All that would do is provide further reductions in difficulty for people that want to hide behind Concords skirt while still attacking people in highsec. There' should be more ways to disrupt people in highsec but you should actually have to take some risk to do it. Risking a disposable ship is not really risk. I do find it funny how some people want more ways to totally trash other people's ability to play the game but want to be able to easily avoid exactly the same happening to them.

The part of missions that should be changed is how repetitive they are and how static the spawns and inherent risk is in the mission itself. There should also be more failure states as very few exist. At the end of the day, it's one of the the first parts of the game people see, and it will likely be one they revisit a lot, so it should be entertaining enough to keep people subbed.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#3972 - 2016-01-18 16:27:35 UTC
Yeah, I wish there was more to do in low sec. ATM, null is getting all the love.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3973 - 2016-01-18 16:47:51 UTC
Leonerd Dice wrote:
They absolutely need to work on the missions, and the rats. And their difficulty and their rewards, and their looks. The comment you are replying too is absolutely right. More quests, and more things to do isn't making the game casual. Less quests and less things to do for more reward is. That's what happened to WoW.


Nonsense. Most of the people complaining about PVE aren't even PVE players. A PVE player likes PVE for what it is, and probably cycles through the various types of it. Most people who claim PVE needs 'help' are mission runners to afraid to try anything else.

CCP must have learned over the years that adding more 'content' to a game that already has loads people don't use only creates demand for more content. It's a never ending cycle.

I'm serious about this too, I NEVER see the people who complain about PVE spend any time in the PVE forums. The problem is their lack of creativity, not any lack of pve in EVE Online.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3974 - 2016-01-18 16:54:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
. Tough. Use the block function if you don't like seeing my opinions.


Never. People like you (those who, out of either naivety or malice, would kill a good thing) need to be opposed, lest others think what you're saying and doing is ok. It's not.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3975 - 2016-01-18 17:03:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Never. People like you (those who, out of either naivety or malice, would kill a good thing) need to be opposed, lest others think what you're saying and doing is ok. It's not.
What I'm saying and doing is OK. I'm actually allowed to have opinions you know. You disagreeing with them doesn't make what I say "not OK".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3976 - 2016-01-18 17:09:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Never. People like you (those who, out of either naivety or malice, would kill a good thing) need to be opposed, lest others think what you're saying and doing is ok. It's not.
What I'm saying and doing is OK. I'm actually allowed to have opinions you know. You disagreeing with them doesn't make what I say "not OK".


No one said you didn't have the right to an opinion. Your opinions are wrong. High intelligence, zero wisdom, and it's the lack of wisdom that causes problems (in virtual worlds and the real one alike).
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3977 - 2016-01-18 17:14:09 UTC
Skillpoints trading is coming next month, so will be interesting to see what happens to numbers of new players.

I know I'll be stripping off several characters and then closing those accounts as I won't need them anymore, but I hope it brings in new players too.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3978 - 2016-01-18 17:33:41 UTC
200 pages. Surely EVE has died by now?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3979 - 2016-01-18 17:38:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Your opinions are wrong.
There is no such thing, only opinions you agree or disagree with.

Tippia wrote:
You don't see how mechanically reducing the risks for the mission runners and skewing the aggression mechanics more and more in their favour has had an impact on how keen people are on disrupting missions?
No, I don't. I don't even agree that there's been a net buff to mission runner safety. Anyone that knew what they were doing before was just as safe then as they are now. Effectively what you're complaining about is that they've tidied up some of the systems so newer players don't get caught out so easily first time round, that you actually have to put in some bloody effort, which I'm happy with.

Tippia wrote:
Why is it a problem if disruption can be done without repercussions? That just means it was job done well.
To do the job well should take effort, it shouldn't just the "the way".

Tippia wrote:
No. It means that the people doing the missions need to stop running classic mission fits designed to take on a bunch of weak-ass NPCs solo. There are more ways of doing missions than that, and missions are run in other parts of space without any CONCORD protection. If they choose not to be prepared, then that's not a problem — that's just them making bad decisions.
No matter what fit they have, they will still be the ones already being shot by NPCs, unless you're suggesting that when a hostile warps in the NPCs despawn and they get automatically repped to full. Making it easier to disrupt a mission as it stands now would simply mean the player has to evade, leading to the same lack of conflict problems plaguing null, and putting even more players off.

Tippia wrote:
No. Those people are constantly having their risks mechanically reduced rather than being forced to manage the risks themselves. That's the difference: they don't manage their risks, and then complain to CCP when that unpreparedness yields a negative outcome. All of that as opposed to the gankers, who have had to constantly evolve new methods and techniques to deal with their ever-increasing risks.
LOL! No, your problem is that people are using techniques to avoid being killed and you don't want them to have those. If it were mechanical, then they simply wouldn't be able to be ganked, yet freighters, miners and mission runners still die because they didn't choose to mitigate their risk properly. If anything the changes they've made simply offer more choice to be less protected and potentially earn more or be more protected and earn less. Again, the only people who are helped by default are newbies.

And mate, ganking is easy. It takes nearly no skillpoints, isk investment or even training. Hell I had a 10 day old alt blapping frigates on the Niarja gate with ships made from pocket change, and I risk what? A 1m isk thrasher. Ooh, scary. One half decent implant or blueprint drop and he's set for life. Stop pretending gankers have it tough you joker.

You want to know who has the raw deal? The AGs. They get nearly no reward, risk getting ganked themselves (usually in ships that actually cost isk) and have one hell of a time getting on grid during the 10 second window they have to stand a chance of stopping a gank.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#3980 - 2016-01-18 17:42:15 UTC
Quote:
7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.

Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political affiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.


As such, I have removed several post and those referring to them for the above reason.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.