These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2016-11-13 00:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Steffles wrote:


In regards to it going against everything EvE is supposed to be about - read this, you're clearly wrong.

Here's a lil image to back up my earlier assertion that there are more pve'rs vs pvp'rs. This is a free to play clone of the original EQ. Its quite clear from the player counts that the PVE server is very much more popular than the pvp server as was the case back when I first played EQ. I started on a PvP server back then, Tallon Zek I think it was. CCP tapping into the PvE market is without doubt the smartest thing they could do.



you're really trying to milk it with that image from 2005 11 year ago Roll do you not understand that was said 11 years ago,, games evolve. get over youself... lol 11 year old qoute mining. classic.

oh and ,,,


everquest? really??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

LolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLol

The earlier the more accurate it is. Oveur was the original lead developer and therefore the expert personto say what High Sec was designed for.

EQ, DAOC, WoW, whatever mmo you like its the same. The majority of players don't like unrestricted PvP and they're therefore the best market to cater to.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#542 - 2016-11-13 00:49:02 UTC
Steffles wrote:


The earlier the more accurate it is. Oveur was the original lead developer and therefore the expert personto say what High Sec was designed for.

EQ, DAOC, WoW, whatever mmo you like its the same. The majority of players don't like unrestricted PvP and they're therefore the best market to cater to.


accurate how? the game has changed a lot, you're talking about history and sound like an old drunk git sitting at a bar tellin all the young folk how is was better back in the day. give it a rest.

it wasn't better back then, it wasn't much different,, if you flew your ship like an idiot you payed the price. i was told within a week of playing not to auto pilot, i was shown how to create bookmarks, it was explained to me how to make an insta undock, i was told not to trust trade routes and to be careful going into them. i was told to get a mate to fly as a scout ahead of me.

so no matter what changes CCP gave into from all the whining fecks, it hasn't caused me any issues.

you want CCP to just give in and cater to those that couldn't be arsed learning how to play a game or even want to compete with others, you want EVE to become like all the rest of the shite games out there, insta dungeons for all, no need to warp anywhere,
no threats from anything but a stupid NPC that has the brain power of your average battery.
if you got your wish this game would slip away into the history books and be remembered only for it's days when it was a dark life sucking unforgiving ***** that would gladly burn everything you worked hard for to the ground. a game that broke the mold.
If EVE was what you'd want it to be, you'd never have felt that feeling of complete loss, you heart beat would have never risen about it's normal rate and you'd have never felt the rush of your first loss or first kill. the EVE you want is not hte EVE i know and remember.

why would you want the game to change into a piece of crap average borefest just to attract more numbers?

wait let me guess,,, EVE is dying. Roll am i right?

so come on then,, save it,,,,, not change it into shite,,,, save it in it's current form.

or are you a one trick pony?

come on,,, how do you attract more players into the game and get them to stay without changing the game?

beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.


Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#543 - 2016-11-13 02:33:58 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.

Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash.

Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null.
Not free to play, with a subscription fee.

Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying.

For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc..

Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#544 - 2016-11-13 02:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Mark Marconi wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.

Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash.

Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null.
Not free to play, with a subscription fee.

Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying.

For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc..

Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go.

What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.

There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH

Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.

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..."

Jagd Wilde
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#545 - 2016-11-13 04:41:16 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Jagd Wilde wrote:
Alastair Ormand wrote:
Jagd Wilde wrote:
Yup, another one.

So OP,

Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.

If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.

gtfo


But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve.


I know everyone thinks ganking a freighter for profit is easy, but until you have done it I cannot take you seriously

Given its being done with multiboxed stealth bombers and a couple of other people I'd say its pretty easy. Look up Jackson Kusion and his alts.

You clearly don't understand that your assumption of the ease of killing freighters is faulty, as you have absolutely ZERO experience on the matter. Therefore your entire argument is invalid.

Next time choose a subject you have knowledge in, your 'feelings' don't count here.

Every alt I own has a red safety, this has brought my friends much laughter.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#546 - 2016-11-13 04:42:07 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.

There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH

Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.


you beat me to it, Roll

but it's incredible how these people just don't understand that EVE and everything in it is player created and driven and if you where to do something as stupid as create safe zones it would detroy the marketa and the game.

then asking for a server for them to play without threat of any kind but dumb NPC's,, honestly do these people play the same game we do?

for some reason at some stage when they began EVE they failed to learn to lose ships and recover, the old fly what you can afford to lose only thingy, they never got that.

they failed to deal with it, failed to learn how to get over it, or just too feckin lazy.
it seems they want it all handed to them on easy lvl while they watch youtube videos and talk bollox with their mates online in other games.

which is all cool till someone kerplodes their ship and pod Roll

they shouldn't act surprised, jump on the forums demanding their weak style of play be catered too.

they should take a good dose of kop the feck on, it's like a shite footballer showing up at a game and demanding the rules be changed because their not into some of the game and they shoudl be left alone and be allowed to score when they want.

laughable. RollLolLolLolLol
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#547 - 2016-11-13 05:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Jagd Wilde wrote:
You clearly don't understand that your assumption of the ease of killing freighters is faulty, as you have absolutely ZERO experience on the matter. Therefore your entire argument is invalid.

Next time choose a subject you have knowledge in, your 'feelings' don't count here.

Queue IZ reply saying how he knows all about it because he used to gank freighters solo in rookie ships, AFK, asleep; but he doesn't do it anymore because he wants to play Eve on hard mode, so he mines in highsec as that's the most dangerous thing in the game.

That or some equally stupid tear filled rubbish.

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..."

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#548 - 2016-11-13 06:19:23 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.

Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash.

Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null.
Not free to play, with a subscription fee.

Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying.

For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc..

Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go.

What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.

There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH

Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.

Except SiSi is not permanent and I am not talking about a server where PvP is not allowed in most system just a large amout of hi-sec and some others.

Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#549 - 2016-11-13 06:23:29 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.

There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH

Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.


you beat me to it, Roll

but it's incredible how these people just don't understand that EVE and everything in it is player created and driven and if you where to do something as stupid as create safe zones it would detroy the marketa and the game.

then asking for a server for them to play without threat of any kind but dumb NPC's,, honestly do these people play the same game we do?

for some reason at some stage when they began EVE they failed to learn to lose ships and recover, the old fly what you can afford to lose only thingy, they never got that.

they failed to deal with it, failed to learn how to get over it, or just too feckin lazy.
it seems they want it all handed to them on easy lvl while they watch youtube videos and talk bollox with their mates online in other games.

which is all cool till someone kerplodes their ship and pod Roll

they shouldn't act surprised, jump on the forums demanding their weak style of play be catered too.

they should take a good dose of kop the feck on, it's like a shite footballer showing up at a game and demanding the rules be changed because their not into some of the game and they shoudl be left alone and be allowed to score when they want.

laughable. RollLolLolLolLol

Yes everything in the markets is interconnected. Which leaves either splitting or interconnecting the markets.

Given the move of CCP to go free to play, I believe this is a valid option as this way the PvP players can continue but those more PvE orientated might wish to do something else. All it will harm is the game most people don't want to play.

Call it the ultimate in PvP.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#550 - 2016-11-13 07:33:58 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server...

Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining?

Nothing. That's exactly what we expect.

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..."

pushdogg
relocation LLC.
#551 - 2016-11-13 07:41:48 UTC
You can't improve what is perfect.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#552 - 2016-11-13 07:51:15 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server...

Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining?

Nothing. That's exactly what we expect.

We gained Serenity server and the EvE world did not end.

A more PvE based server would appeal to very few who currently play the game, if the arguments PvP players put forth. So it would not harm the Tranquility server. However it would allow people who want a more PvE focused game who have left or not joined due to EvEs PvP focus to enjoy and play the game.

So either you are right and people enjoy the harsh brutality of EvE or your wrong and a large number of players don't. So in reality you are only arguing with yourself. After all those who don't like the current PvP focus, the majority have already left.

Are you worried a more PvE focused server might be more economically successful like the PvE servers in almost every other game and so distract from your attempts to kill EvE via selfishness.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#553 - 2016-11-13 08:06:10 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server...

Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining?

Nothing. That's exactly what we expect.

We gained Serenity server and the EvE world did not end.

A more PvE based server would appeal to very few who currently play the game, if the arguments PvP players put forth. So it would not harm the Tranquility server. However it would allow people who want a more PvE focused game who have left or not joined due to EvEs PvP focus to enjoy and play the game.

So either you are right and people enjoy the harsh brutality of EvE or your wrong and a large number of players don't. So in reality you are only arguing with yourself. After all those who don't like the current PvP focus, the majority have already left.

Are you worried a more PvE focused server might be more economically successful like the PvE servers in almost every other game and so distract from your attempts to kill EvE via selfishness.

No one would go for it. Even the few dozen carebears who went to try would stop playing there when they saw there were no PLEXes on the market or anyone else there to buy any of there wares. It would only appeal to the true, solo-mindset player who wants to grind and build everything for themselves, and I imagine even they would grow tired of paying $15/a month to build useless things on an empty server when there is no visual feedback from the game on their progress.

While it would be an interesting exercise, you would also have the hurdle that current players on the PvP server would be resistant to giving up their investment and starting again there so it wouldn't really be a fair experiment. But practically it would be a complete waste of time and developer resources.

It's all academic really though. CCP has repeatedly affirmed that Eve is a PvP sandbox and thing are working largely as they intend. We can speculate or pontificate on what they should or should not do to make a successful game, but really the only choice we have is to play or not. That is how the free market it suppose to work, so if Eve's isn't what you are looking for, you should show CCP this and move on and try another game that suits you better.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#554 - 2016-11-13 08:42:07 UTC
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.

Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.

CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#555 - 2016-11-13 09:18:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mark Marconi wrote:
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.

Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.

CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play.

Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game.

But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given there is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen.

Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#556 - 2016-11-13 09:36:57 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.

Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.

CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play.

Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game.

But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen.

Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment.

EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing.

Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#557 - 2016-11-13 09:50:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mark Marconi wrote:

EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing.

Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.
This thread is going in circles like all the similar ones.

Before the insurance nerf, there was much less cost to gank. Even if gankers used battleships, they were mostly covered by insurance, and at some points insurance even paid more than the cost of the hull meaning you made a profit if you failed a suicide gank against the side of a station.

Ganking has never cost more than it currently does, nor has it ever been rarer. You can make the case that the general increase in player wealth over the years means those costs to gank something mean less as everyone is richer, but that also applies to the miner or hauler whose losses are equally less meaningful.

I'd love though an improved bounty hunting system and more game play that allows player law enforcement to interfere with criminals though. Those are actually good thoughts on improving the game as this thread is suppose to be about.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#558 - 2016-11-13 09:52:02 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers.

As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#559 - 2016-11-13 10:03:14 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers.

As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen.

Lol

Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#560 - 2016-11-13 10:07:45 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.

I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers.

As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen.

Lol

Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them.

Quote one.