Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This +1. If EVE wants new peeps then it needs to provide more incentives not even bigger barriers to entry. No one needs to hermetically seal off PVE from PVP content but what really gets new players is the perception that they really dont have much of a chance in null sec given the older generation of players already there. EVE's current mechanics unfortunately dont seem to provide much incentive. I keep thinking about how much perception matters for new gamers who probably have cut thier teeth on MMOs and other games which have instant gratification (admittedly this is another topic altogether) but FW for example is a good albiet still flawed way to get people to null sec without hitting them over the head unlike some people seem hell bent on doing.

Kinda like pockets of concord / GCC flagging. It kinda makes sense. A week ago my FW fleet engaged a ganker on the sun and in the process we got flagged GCC and whats worse because the guy he was shooting at was - Sec status and he wasnt, we got standing hits instead.

something like this as well as balancing the reward vs risk of high, low and null would be more effective than simply reducing high sec.

at present the areas in eve dont follow a gradient in reward vs risk. its more:

high sec - moderate reward vs low risk
low sec - moderate reward vs high risk
null sec - high reward vs moderate risk

balancing the risk vs reward system will encourage people to move to low and then to null

Right, lets clear this up. The essential problem here is not risk vs reward. Its effeciency. Its about the most effecienct way to make isk, not the most potentially rewarding. You can increase the reward all you want but its not going to work because the risk of low/null makes it ineffecient.

The people you're trying to move into low/null are flying ships which cannot stand up to PVP. Expensive ships. There's a high risk of them being ganked as helpless loot pinatas. The high risk of losing 300-400m negates the effeciency of any possible isk being made. At the same time, if you increase the reward too far to try and compensate for that risk of ship loss it will become the defacto isk faucet for major corps and alliances already in low/null who wil just move in and shut out high sec players anyhow.

low/null need to provide rewards that are unique to low/null and not available to high. As long as you're still speaking in terms of ISK it will simply never be worth it to the sort of player you're trying to attract and as long as you're speaking in terms of punishing high sec by removing something from it to give to low/null you're not going to get much support either.

The flaw in low/null is with low/null itself. Its just not appealing to the majority as it currently stands. Nor will it ever be as long as people keep approaching it as a matter of ISK.

I fail to see your point.

What is so wrong about a niche game if it generates revenue and profit?

Then why do you bring up the themeparks if you like not playing theme?




I agree FW needs to be tweaked, but I wouldn't go as far as say that.

However, we do agree on the need to introduce new mechanics for PVP in highsec that encourage emergent gameplay and are not related to either Null sov or low sec FW, but can lead to them. One of the reasons PvP is not popular in highsec is because people have little opportunity to gain experience in it without huge investments and without rewards from the mechanic. Hence missions are much more attractive than PvP in highsec.

Totally agree on the Learning Implants they are IMO one of the single biggest factors in turning new peeps into carebears, CCP needs to get rid of em like learning skills.

For the average newbie even a set of +3s is a major investment, and especialy for someone who is still trying to find his feet in EVE.

Let me correct then. Why oppose Simi's allusion to themeparks if you basically agree with it? Simi's point, which is that certain changes make EVE stop being a niche and become a themepark you seem to share, yet you went out of your way to question it. I am pointing out your objection makes no sense to me, in particular of light of your reply.




Sure, but it misses my point, which is for mechanics-driven incentives. RvB is still player determined and not goal centric other than fun. I like the RvB people etc, but if I am in highsec I rather missions, as it is more profitable (Well, RvB is zero profit, actually).



You don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.

Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.



Don't fly what you can't afford to lose includes the pod. If you cannot afford to lose those implants, don't get them.

So your point in this respect is invalid: "Fly what you can afford to lose" is not a fallacy, but the only real rule. Just because people forget you don't only fly a ship, but also the pod with the clone that has the implants, it doesn't make it a fallacy.

However, it is true that fear of losing implants is one of the reasons for risk aversion - but that is not the game mechanic's fault. I mean, anything above +3 is not really needed unless you are training level 8 skills or higher, and those are not noob skills, and if you are training those as a noob, you are doing it wrong.

There is point in which the handholding and lowest common denominator stuff has to stop, and that is when risk aversion is based on making stupid choices based on self-imagined progressions paths instead of engaging the community of the more experienced. For example, wanting to be some corporate lordmaster right away insted of joining EVE-U or something.

Apples and oranges.

The point Simi makes is that niche games last because they appeal to a a proven niche, whereas the themparks don't last more than a few years when they fail to develop a following.

And that is astute and even your numbers support it.

The only long-running themepark is WoW. All the rest die, even big names like Star Wars or Star Trek die.

And of the ones still around, they have become cult, which is not the same as niche. A cult game is like Starcraft in South Korea, kept around only because its like printing money - selling copies with little work or support costs. A niche game is one that is continually updated and renewed and actively worked on, even if it has no mass appeal.

More importantly, what irritated Simi, in all probability, is the fact we all have heard this type of pseudoblackmail doomsaying before. EVE doesn't need new players. It needs to keep steady.

And it has. For almost a decade.

That is the point you miss.





As I said, you dont play lowsec.

A gate camp can be avoided by simply using the starmap or having an alt inside lowsec choke point parked in an station. You would know this if you actually knew how to play in lowsec.

Gate camps are an extremely small park of the lowsec experience. FW and mission runner hunting are way more common.




Sorry but you need to reread what "Fly what you can afford to lose" In the words and in the spirit it includes implants. You fly with implants.

It is not semantics. It is what the phrase means.

However, you are playing semantics. You are saying the spirit of the phrase applies only to ships. That is not thinking about it enough. It applies to the fittings, to the cargo, to the ammo, and to the implants, in letter and in spirit.

I think the best way to get people moving from high sec to low is making it much more attractive, is better to make people interested in that part of the game than forcing them by nerfing other areas such as high sec.

Make it worth it and people will go. After being a 100% high sec carebear for a lot of time I decided to try playing as a low sec explorer and found it interesting enough yo make it my main ocupation, it was not as much dangerous as I first thought it would be... at least in the low sec area I tried.

I also think that there is a huge amount of players that enjoy high sec mining and missioning because is a way to relax and spend time from RL problems and stress nerf that area and you'll make EVE no that good for them.