These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Every year, there are less users playing, why??

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#881 - 2016-08-03 12:14:34 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:


I really don't identify with these nerfs - I actually no longer remember what changes were introduced. The removal of insurance from gank ships?


That was actually one of the smarter nerfs, even the most ardent ganker thought free battleships was a silly thing.

By far the biggest nerf was when CCP did the two barge balance passes. They effectively killed jetcan piracy, interdictions, hulkageddon and so on. They basically said miners are too stupid to be trusted to fit their own ships so did it for them and at the same time removed all the content that used to revolve around mining in highsec. We have also seen other changes such as increased tank on all ships, reduced concord response times and so on.

There is no arguing that we have lost a great deal of content from highsec over the last few years.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#882 - 2016-08-03 12:30:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:


I really don't identify with these nerfs - I actually no longer remember what changes were introduced. The removal of insurance from gank ships?


That was actually one of the smarter nerfs, even the most ardent ganker thought free battleships was a silly thing.

By far the biggest nerf was when CCP did the two barge balance passes. They effectively killed jetcan piracy, interdictions, hulkageddon and so on. They basically said miners are too stupid to be trusted to fit their own ships so did it for them and at the same time removed all the content that used to revolve around mining in highsec. We have also seen other changes such as increased tank on all ships, reduced concord response times and so on.

There is no arguing that we have lost a great deal of content from highsec over the last few years.


So why do you moan about it and detail it as a nerf?

Jet can mining was replaced with suspect baiting, you don't like it as it is more risk, we have gone through this before.

Increased tank on mining ships was finely applied two and a half years after the DPS of destroyers was massively buffed. It was called balancing and it just showed how bad CCP were in seeing what was going on with their game.

The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#883 - 2016-08-03 13:42:04 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#884 - 2016-08-03 14:06:40 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.


Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#885 - 2016-08-03 14:31:41 UTC
Anyway if you go on reddit there is a post where someone analyzes financial situation of eve and it proves that they are losing clients, raising profit cutting costs, everyone says it's not good.

I don't know if I can link reddit posts, maybe not ( and I don't want to be censored), but it proves that they need to carefully think why they are losing players...
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#886 - 2016-08-03 14:47:16 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
Anyway if you go on reddit there is a post where someone analyzes financial situation of eve and it proves that they are losing clients, raising profit cutting costs, everyone says it's not good.

I don't know if I can link reddit posts, maybe not ( and I don't want to be censored), but it proves that they need to carefully think why they are losing players...

Traditionally from a business standpoint raising profits and cutting costs are considered good things...

Just throwing it out there...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#887 - 2016-08-03 14:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Gadget Helmsdottir
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.


Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.



The DCU change from an active to passive module has been requested for years. One of the problems in changing this module was that they didn't want the module to be mandatory to have on every combat ship. Active DCU's sometimes lost out in cap warfare, so there was a real choice not to use one over a passive module. However, if they were made passive and kept the more than double EHP boost... what non suicide ship wouldn't take one? The illusion of choice is not a choice, so the debate raged on for some time.

Finally they decided what we have now. Give everyone a boost to hull resists, make the DCU passive, but have the module offer less in protection. In essence it offers about the same protection as before, but since all ships now have a better hull resist profile, there's now a real choice to use or not use the device.

Then someone noticed how this might affect freighters and other indies. CCP decided to implement it anyway.

CCP's spiel about buff/nerf balance was simple PR.

However, the decision to change hull resists was not made in response to the wreck issue. It was made much earlier... months, if not years, in design process.

The wrecks issue was spit out in a few weeks.

There is no big conspiracy.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#888 - 2016-08-03 16:24:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Where exactly is the evidence to say ganking is a problem?


Where is the evidence that anti-EVE zealots need evidence to believe something?
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#889 - 2016-08-03 16:57:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


There is no arguing that we have lost a great deal of content from highsec over the last few years.


I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.

As for the rest of your post I don't feel strongly about it either way, if the 'secs had a graveyard for dead characters highsecs would be the largest by far. Highsec is where dignity goes to die, the toon going on ice shortly afterward.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#890 - 2016-08-03 16:57:16 UTC
voetius wrote:

@Teckos. There is one fatal flaw with the example statistic that people use about ganked players and player retention and that is that it can also be explained by "survivorship bias".

From Wikipedia:

Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.

This is not to say that CCP are incorrect, it would need more data to determine the answer either way. So your point may be valid or it may not, but the argument based on ganking and retention needs a it more work to be conclusive.


Can you explain how this bias would work with the CCP analysis. I'm not seeing it. They are not looking at people who survived ganks. Nor were they looking at accounts where people stuck with the game. Is there some other dimension that you see survival on?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#891 - 2016-08-03 17:15:31 UTC
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.


Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.



The DCU change from an active to passive module has been requested for years. One of the problems in changing this module was that they didn't want the module to be mandatory to have on every combat ship. Active DCU's sometimes lost out in cap warfare, so there was a real choice not to use one over a passive module. However, if they were made passive and kept the more than double EHP boost... what non suicide ship wouldn't take one? The illusion of choice is not a choice, so the debate raged on for some time.

Finally they decided what we have now. Give everyone a boost to hull resists, make the DCU passive, but have the module offer less in protection. In essence it offers about the same protection as before, but since all ships now have a better hull resist profile, there's now a real choice to use or not use the device.

Then someone noticed how this might affect freighters and other indies. CCP decided to implement it anyway.

CCP's spiel about buff/nerf balance was simple PR.

However, the decision to change hull resists was not made in response to the wreck issue. It was made much earlier... months, if not years, in design process.

The wrecks issue was spit out in a few weeks.

There is no big conspiracy.

--Gadget


It also failed in its primary goal, the mod is still a must have on everything that fitted them before. Not only that but the protection offered by it is slightly improved on the T2 and greatly improved with the faction variants. So in the end they are more must have than before and ships like the Anshar suddenly got the tank of another freighter dumped onto its already massive tank for no reason (it couldn't even fit a DCU). It was a terrible change and a prime example of why blanket buffs/nerfs are a terrible idea when it comes to ship balance.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#892 - 2016-08-03 17:17:15 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.


CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP nerfs/removes the tools then they also nerf the content that can be created.
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#893 - 2016-08-03 17:27:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.


CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP nerfs/removes the tools then they also nerf the content that can be created.


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#894 - 2016-08-03 17:41:51 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.


CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP nerfs/removes the tools then they also nerf the content that can be created.


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.


I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Examples of player created content are NS wars. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the Max and Max 2.0 campaigns. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the IT Alliance taking Fountain and then moving on to Delve, Querious and Period Basis. These were things players decided to do and made the game interesting, exciting and fun.

This is a game centered on players interacting with other players, that is where the bulk of the content comes from.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#895 - 2016-08-03 17:51:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP changes the tools then they also change the content that can be created.


FTFY

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#896 - 2016-08-03 17:52:00 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.


Back in 2012 my corp shut down all caldari ice mining in highsec for a month, caused a huge spike in caldari ice prices and everything associated with it. We killed something like 600 barges and went through over 1000 gank ships.

So in that month we provided content all across caldari space, for all miners in it, content for people trying to defend them, content for ship, ammo and mod producers, content for people playing the market and impacted people from the lowly miner in highsec to the titan pilot in null who ended up paying out the nose for their fuel.

All from 30 people in a single corp.

Just one man was responsible for the battle of Asakai, so yes we do infact make the content.
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#897 - 2016-08-03 17:58:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.


Back in 2012 my corp shut down all caldari ice mining in highsec for a month, caused a huge spike in caldari ice prices and everything associated with it. We killed something like 600 barges and went through over 1000 gank ships.

So in that month we provided content all across caldari space, for all miners in it, content for people trying to defend them, content for ship, ammo and mod producers, content for people playing the market and impacted people from the lowly miner in highsec to the titan pilot in null who ended up paying out the nose for their fuel.

All from 30 people in a single corp.

Just one man was responsible for the battle of Asakai, so yes we do infact make the content.


You simply played a game.

Many things happens in any mmo around, you took note and now you say to others, nothing more nothing less...
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
#898 - 2016-08-03 17:59:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.


Back in 2012 my corp shut down all caldari ice mining in highsec for a month, caused a huge spike in caldari ice prices and everything associated with it. We killed something like 600 barges and went through over 1000 gank ships.

So in that month we provided content all across caldari space, for all miners in it, content for people trying to defend them, content for ship, ammo and mod producers, content for people playing the market and impacted people from the lowly miner in highsec to the titan pilot in null who ended up paying out the nose for their fuel.

All from 30 people in a single corp.

Just one man was responsible for the battle of Asakai, so yes we do infact make the content.


Why don't I remember this? I lived in Caldari space that year. I remember GSF trying to own Gallente belts that year. I'm not saying you are lying I am just saying I don't remember this
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#899 - 2016-08-03 18:02:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.


CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP nerfs/removes the tools then they also nerf the content that can be created.


You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.


I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Examples of player created content are NS wars. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the Max and Max 2.0 campaigns. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the IT Alliance taking Fountain and then moving on to Delve, Querious and Period Basis. These were things players decided to do and made the game interesting, exciting and fun.

This is a game centered on players interacting with other players, that is where the bulk of the content comes from.


When I was playing WoW there were assault to other faction Capitals, big Pvp groups, zones that were places for battles and so on.

When I was playing ultima online it was the same.

The same here.

Every game with players playing together has what you call content as something unique to Eve, it's not at all.

It's players interacting, nothing else.
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#900 - 2016-08-03 18:17:02 UTC
I would use RvB as an example of creating content.

What they do is not something deliberately written in by CCP, but they did make the tools that make this content possible.
And I call it Content because it's something bigger than just basic player interaction.

RVB has structure, longevity, and can be joined by anyone that's willing to follow the structure.

They took a kernel of an idea, - that in any other game would be considered content created by the devs - and using the existing rule set, created an EvE version of said content. They created a new way to play EvE that others can join in.

That's content.

--Gadget



Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."