EVE General Discussion

Actually I don't even think such a characterisation is necessary.

To me, the binary view that someone or something new in the game must be either PVP or PVE is flawed.

There are a really large group of players that do all things in the game. CCP had a graph a couple of years back and classed them as 'professionals'.

Even for the groups that they classed as mainly PVE, mainly PVP, the Industrialists and the Socials, they all had activities that crossed over into other categories as well.

That's the whole point. The introduction of Citadels as an example. Citadels require mining and PI to gather the resources needed to build them. They require industry to build them and trading to sell them. Then, once they are up, there is pvp involved in removing them, and all the while they support multiple activities in their use.

To suggest that they are somehow just a thing for pvp is dishonest. They provide activity for multiple play styles in the game and certainly just as much for PVE/Industry/PI/Trading as for PVP.

A lot of the changes introduced into the game are similar. They have to be researched, resourced, built, sold and ultimately fought over by players. They support all play styles, even if you want to place all players into some binary classification scheme, everyone still gains out of the games development.

Well, tbh. it is not very important if they ask you, as you are not representing the PVE people (because there is no homogenous group of PVE'ers like explained by Shae). So stop acting like all PVE'ers think like you, because there are multiple proofs of the opposite on these very forums... You are one measuring point, not the trend

The reality is that NPC miners you can interact with is an PVE improvement. You can even use them as protection from the bad PVPërs. If you asked for it ot not, doesn't change that they are doing something for those that like mainly to PVE, by updating the AI. And tbh. you don't know how many has asked for this... all you can say is that you have not.

I think that a developing AI that reacts to player behaviour is a nice solution to the ageold problem of keeping deliviering new content to People who burn through content, min/max and get bored.

and like Shae said, you are lying about the amount of PVE content because it is not what you want (I have yet to see someone support your "playing cards" PVE affecting the environment idea, so I think you are a special snowflake, with special needs that differ from most PVE/PVP's I meet). Funny enough CCPs idea also involves that the environment reacts to your actions, and can affect others (mining fleets helping you, is one example)

Also we have been discussing multiple times, about how you manipulate the existing data and use it to make predictions that are not supported by the data. For example the good old mistake of using PCU to predict unique players, that you have commited again in this very thread.

Like i have said multiple times, EVE could be better but it is no where as bad as you keep postulating. Your negativity and manipulation of data, makes constructive dialog impossible with you and makes your every post an eyesore. You don't wan't a solution .. you just want to see CCP burn, because they did not listen to you. Regardless if your ideas are good or not.

I think the valid point which most seem to miss here is that even PvP players utilize PvE extensively for income. So neglecting PvE is going to have a negative impact on all aspects of the game - not just for strictly PvE players. And contrary to popular belief, the focus for the last few years has in fact been on PvP. An inordinate amount of time has been spent on basically overhauling null-sec with mimimal (if any) benefit to high-sec, low-sec or wormhole space.

Most PvE players don't have a problem with PvP. It's the manner in which it's been forced down our throats by effectively nerfing various income streams in high-sec to 'entice' us to venture out. Low-sec and null-sec are rigged shell games and this has been abundantly apparent for many years.

The whole skill injection/extraction and F2P aspects seem like a drowning man frantically grabbing at anything to stay afloat. F2P in particular, as this has been implemented with a mimimal of advertising and promotion. The simple truth is that there isn't enough in EVE to compel most new players to stick around or subscribe - at least to those with the attention span of a ferret.

While there are certainly aspects of the game which CCP could be commended for, they've also made an equal if not greater number if missteps, blunders and generally poor decisions.

Yeah... maybe let's try to keep this somewhat on point with respect to the PvE and PvP aspects (or lack thereof) of the development cycle.

Thats a bad habit.
Debates are not about winning, or "sticking" to anything.
They are about truth.

Ontopic:

What are the SPECIFIC changes you want CCP to implement so your view on PvE would be put into the game?
Please submit them in a numbered list, so we can discuss each ot them individually.

Well, with insufficent data, truth is unattainable. So we discuss what we see from what is revealed to us, either directly (PCU numbers) or indirectly (CCP's financial statements). It's open to discusison thus interpretation, thus each one will defend what he thinks it's the truth. I don't lie, but certainly I have different degrees of conviction about things. As a intuitive thinker, I'm not confortable with thorough discusison of heaps of data, but I can make some interesting leaps with absolutely insufficent information. In the case of CCP, I foresaw F2P when skill injectors were introduced. Later, CCP Seagull kindly explained that yes, injectors were a move in the road to F2P... and I still think Ascension is not the end of the road to shift EVE's revenue scheme from access monetization to activity monetization.



Some of the changes are specific, others aren't. For an instance, I would like that CCP hired a level builder to add new dungeons regularly, and to keep those new dungeons in synchrony with other changes (FAI, adding dungeons about Citadels with the Citadel expansion). That would give PvErs a impression that their interests are being catered to and would help them feel involved with PvP centered expansions.

The usual objection to this idea is that new dungeons would be mapped and guided in days, even before launch, but since nobody forces players to read dungeon guides, that's not a real issue. Another usual objection is that new dungeons would become old, but that's why I say hiring someone whose job is to juice out possibilites from the tools CCP eventually developed to add dungeons without coding everything by hand. Now those tools are unused because CCP doesn't likes dungeons as they are not "cool", and certainly they're not here to let players decide what they want to pay for.

(Yet if you ask, and even without asking, the very first thing everybody says about "more PvE" is: ADD NEW MISSIONS!!)

Anyway, this could go on and on... I suggest you reading this (specially the 108 comments):

http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/2015/10/taboo-questions.html

And this:

http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/2015/10/what-to-do-with-taboos.html

And this:

http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/2015/10/looking-at-taboo.html

That's what a tiny sliver of the highsec and PvE community told Sugar Kyle when she asked, innocently, about highsec. Any ressemblance between that and what CCP does is accidental, and if you think that CCP should have reacted to the overwhelming response received by Sugar, you'll be totally wrong. CCP, as I said, hasn't asked anything to PvErs in 8 years at least.

And here we are, we might choose between rescuing the a Damsel for the 200th time, or 'interact' with NPC miners by shooting hot plasma to their faces, which I guess it's the real purpose of flying a Skiff...

And your guessing would be as good as your logic (hint: not very good):

https://twitter.com/sugar_kyle/status/825217961728294912

Typical, when there's evidence to the contrary, don't go looking for it, just guess away. Ignorance makes it easier to think it's right.

I believe it's fair to say the discussion has progressed to the point where we should decide if there is room for 'carebear' type mentality in EvE.

EvE definitely has it's unique selling point in it's combat, either small scale or alliance level. Also in it's global pvp, in some form at least. I would characterise the 'carebear' mindset as wanting a flowery garden where they won't be hurt, and can be left to pick fruits in peace. Now can this exist somewhere in the eve universe? It would certainly add to the 'worldliness' of the game, and potentially bring in more revenue for CCP.

When I started playing eve represented a universe where you could do anything, perhaps there should be an area (with bottom of the barrel rewards to keep with risk /reward) for these peaceful players? Highsec used to be like this before it became both one of the safest and highest sources of income, i.e. incursions. Nullsec corps made the big money and flew T2 ships, missions gave you enough to buy a T1 BC after a couple hours. Highsec was then fairly peaceful, barring hulkageddon, and combat happened in null, low, and NPC null.

Maybe I wasn't clear, 100k subs /10k PCU is the point where EVE is heading as CCP develops it. They're not there yet, but are progressing nicely towards it.

On the topic of the link between PCU and total subscribers, historically the correlation was of 8 subs per unit of PCU, but likely today is higher since there's less alts permalogged thus each account logged represents more actual subscriptions. Thus we could estimate that currently Tranquility haves about 380,000 active subscriptions, of which we don't have any idea on which are being paid and which don't.

(For the sake of clarity, PCU means "Peak Concurrent Users" and it measures the maximum amount of accounts logged in in a 24 hours period; it's a statistic provided by the Tranquility logs, which can be called externally. It provides an easy overview on the health of the game, since having more players online is a good thing. A different matter is the average of measure points, which is lower because it averages the PCU with all other measures, including the lower ones).

Ok, I'll try to break my position down for you.
I've been playing Eve since 2007.
I am an industrialist, I build things - For the sole purpose of selling them to buy what I need for my main PVP characters.

Yes indeed Citadels and EC's are built by players but by that logic, so is every ship and module that is used in PVP and PVE every day. The end result of all the indy work in Eve is that something is going to get destroyed - Whether it be a few hundred NPC's in a lvl 4 or a freighter full of items intended to build the next lot of stuff to be sold on the market and destroyed by players.

Eve is a giant PVP arena - EVERYTHING that goes into EVE is somehow related to being blown up (Devs stated goal for EveOnline - Everything destructible)
- -- - -- -
Rorqual Orca and the new Porpoise - Are indeed directly PVP related buffs. Why do you think Devs removed the safety aspect of those ships by including them in ongrid boosting mechanics - Was it to make it better for miners? I don't think so.

PLEASE tell me This is good for miners .These changes were introduced to make industrial command ships vulnerable, to PVP activity.
I'm not sure you understand what removing offgrid boosts has done to mining game play. For me it is a double edged sword - I mine as part of my industrial activities but also luv how easy it is to kill Rorquals now that they are so vulnerable. So ok in a very small way the buffs to these ships has some benefit for miners - But the risk is far higher than the rewards if you get caught.

In the past when mining with a Rorqual, I was risking a few Exhumers (3 bil or close to it) now, undocking my rorqual I am risking close to 20 bil for the ability to pull an extra 10km3 (+ -30 mil isk) of ore per hour. After the first 10 minutes every 5 minutes you have a Rorqual in a belt increases your chances of getting dunked by 10%
- -- - -- -
LOL, sorry but Project Discovery was a gimmick which is used for CCP to get "we're good guys" points. It is only available (worth doing) for those with specific skills (out of game skills). It really shouldn't be a part of Eve as it isn't something all players can use but as it helps a real world company in saving lives, it's ok.

Please 2 pve events that were no better than running lvl 4's in rewards and contained by far more grindy shite than doing the same lvl 4's over and over. You may consider the poor effort Devs put into those as good for PVE, personally I found them boring and repetitive to the point I gave up doing the same thing 20 or 30 times a day after the first 2 or 3 days.

LOL, I'm really not sure what your goal is here. I think you need to open your eyes, just for a minute - Sure PVE'rs, industrialists etc get to build more stuff with all the new structures which is absolutely great as it means more stuff to blow up - Which after all is the goal. I don't see at all though how Devs specifically designed this new stuff just for indy players.

I'm simply pointing out that everything Devs do is somehow PVP related, regardless of how it gets into the game, the goal is for it to be destroyed.


Orca losses
Porpoise losses