These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hi Sec: Your Future Vision

First post
Author
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#61 - 2013-11-10 12:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
I will not talk about what should be done, as i've spent too many time building up no less than three detailed and complex plans for it. Four, if we account for a early idea that would be a fail and was born from insufficent awarenes/knowledge of the game.

Here is what I *think* that CCP will do, why, and how will it destroy the game.

The Hallelujah Plan which starts with Rubicon haves a two-fold premise:

- capsuleers move away from existing space and into new greener lands
- capsuleers erode the grasp of civilization and make empires thumble under their pressure

In terms of game content, that translates as "a different zero security space with mechanics original and unlike the existing nullsec/wormholes" and "less security in high security space".

The purpose of the later is to adress several serious issues:

- most players dwell in hisec
- player retention of hisec content is low
- high player retention occurs in nullsec/WH content
- demand for low/null/WH content is minoritary
- transition rate from hisec to rest of the space is too random and minoritary
- there is a psychological barrier that keeps high security players from moving elsewhere

Well then, if the player will not go to where player retention is, the only way to fix that is to move player retention to where the players are.

If what retains players are mass PvP, multiplayer operations and corporate buddies, and hisec only provides PvE, casual content and solo content, then it's obvious that those elements must be moved to high security space.

And here comes Rubicon. More PvP, multiplayer operations, and the strong necessity to associate with other players, that is high-value content, is going to hisec.

What could be wrong? The Hallelujah Plan is going to deliver high-retention content right on the doorstep of hiseccers, thus removing the barrier -they won't need to "go there" to meet the dragons and monsters and learn that they're really enjoyable if you fight them along your friends, as the lucky low/null/wh minority learned on their own, wwithout CCP intercession.

What could go wrong?, shall I ask again.

Well, maybe a little detail could go wrong. Maybe, just maybe, hisec players stay in hisec because they want that kind of content, or even worst, they actively dislike/hate/avoid the other content.

If that happened, it would be the players' fault, of course. And then they should better be looking for other games, which likely would do once their beloved hisec was spoiled by the rest of the game.

But that's unlikely to happen. Because CCP has carefuly researched its player base. They know perfectly who pays them and why. They also have one member at the CSM (out of 14, that's serious business) who can instruct them on it, and anyway CCP is well known for actively engaging its players. EVE has never been about what CCP wants to do, but about what the players want.

As much as American foreign policy often regards foreigners as American-who-still-don't-know-that-they-want-to-be-American, CCP, brainchild of another frontier pioneer culture, know that there is a nullseccer struggling to break the shackles of hisec inside every hiseccer, and so CCP is coming to their rescue by delivering the real deal on their doorstep. And it will work just great, because hiseccers, as aliens, never are serious when they pretend to like the sh*t they're doing.

Ain't that right, CCP Seagull? Bear

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-11-10 12:20:49 UTC
The future vision of highsec? A sea of autopiloting and pseudobotting characters performing acts of tedium on an infinite loop, interrupted only by indignant shrieking should the terrifying bogeymen of encouraging players to 'interact with others' or 'adapt to changes', or 'think for yourself' be either introduced or even suggested.

In other words, almost indistinguishable from the current reality. CCP has consistently demonstrated over the last few years they have neither the ability or will to make changes to their game beyond incremental tweaks and niche widgets. Expect wild handwaving and grandiose statements about the future direction of Eve which will forever remain Just Over The Horizon Guys, No Really, whilst entire swathes of core gameplay stagnate and rot.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2013-11-10 12:24:08 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
What could be wrong?
Well, for one, it would be rather dangerous to base any kind of change on the uncertain assumption that most players dwell in highsec… Blink
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#64 - 2013-11-10 12:24:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:

Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.


As someone who has played since beta, could you please report how many players were online in prime time?

Because apparently there's a group of people who misses those 5000 online and wants EvE to lose development funds and an empty game on the brink of default again.


You are implying that the ever increasing safety of highsec has resulted in the increased size of the playerbase?

Correlation does not imply causation. Especially in this case.


Why do you think a mass of casual players came to play EvE in the last years and they stuck in hi sec? Because "correlation does not imply causation" or because it did?

If EvE has 10 times as many players, a large portion of them joined only after EvE became playable for those who are not the 1337 hard core guys.
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#65 - 2013-11-10 12:24:52 UTC
I'm rather hoping that CCP will return highsec back the way it was in the early days when there was no Concord protection.

At present there are a lot of suicide ganks in highsec, I would suggest that the removal of Concord would make miners and indy pilots safer as they could then either buy mercs to guard them (or have an internal pvp wing) that will shoot any bastard that comes within 200k of them (unless blue).

This would also re-link the connection between industry and combat and give meaning to both sides of the game.

No doubt there would be a lot of whining at the beginning but on balance being able to actively protect a mining fleet or mission runner in highsec would be a great advantage, as at present all they can do is die or run. The trade hubs might be a problem but if they were player owned as well then the holding corp would have an interest in policing the area.

It also makes sense in terms of the game storyline which CCP seem to have lost interest in, so having player corporations take over from NPC empires would be in keeping.

I'll just get my flameproof underwear on Big smile
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#66 - 2013-11-10 12:27:23 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The future vision of highsec? A sea of autopiloting and pseudobotting characters performing acts of tedium on an infinite loop, interrupted only by indignant shrieking should the terrifying bogeymen of encouraging players to 'interact with others' or 'adapt to changes', or 'think for yourself' be either introduced or even suggested.


Why do you care if 70% of the playerbase fund your game with stupid gameplay of theirs?

You are not even meant to meet them to begin with, just play your full, unlocked game and enjoy their money funding new large expansions not possible without them!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2013-11-10 12:30:33 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Why do you think a mass of casual players came to play EvE in the last years and they stuck in hi sec?
What do you base that on? The numbers on character distribution have for a long time indicated that larger and larger portions find their way out into low and null.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#68 - 2013-11-10 12:32:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
I'm rather hoping that CCP will return highsec back the way it was in the early days when there was no Concord protection.

At present there are a lot of suicide ganks in highsec, I would suggest that the removal of Concord would make miners and indy pilots safer as they could then either buy mercs to guard them (or have an internal pvp wing) that will shoot any bastard that comes within 200k of them (unless blue).

This would also re-link the connection between industry and combat and give meaning to both sides of the game.

No doubt there would be a lot of whining at the beginning but on balance being able to actively protect a mining fleet or mission runner in highsec would be a great advantage, as at present all they can do is die or run. The trade hubs might be a problem but if they were player owned as well then the holding corp would have an interest in policing the area.

It also makes sense in terms of the game storyline which CCP seem to have lost interest in, so having player corporations take over from NPC empires would be in keeping.

I'll just get my flameproof underwear on Big smile


Your reasonment was VERY sound in the early 2000.

Since then, more than a decade has passed and the MMOs playerbase composition has changed.
These days the majority are NOT going to have the time to invest in a game and find protection mercs and whatever... just to earn the right to log in and have a greater than 10% chance to survive.

That (for some the golden) time is OVER. Gone. FI NI TO.

This happens in EvE but also in the other MMOs, the trend towards "casualification" is several years old now.
MMOs that did not "adapt and overcome" to this new reality have closed down.

I prefer having a bastardized EvE that can release their 20th anniversary deluxe box than a purist game that failed by 2015.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#69 - 2013-11-10 12:33:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Why do you think a mass of casual players came to play EvE in the last years and they stuck in hi sec?
What do you base that on? The numbers on character distribution have for a long time indicated that larger and larger portions find their way out into low and null.


It's called "doing 1 + 1". If CCP did not go balls out into "restoring The Old Order" is because they have the demographics that show them they shouldn't do it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2013-11-10 12:36:03 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
It's called "doing 1 + 1". If CCP did not go balls out into "restoring The Old Order" is because they have the demographics that show them they shouldn't do it.

Except that it's not 1+1, because that would lead us to the equally safe assumption that highsec only holds about ⅓ of the players. So it's more likely that, like everyone else, don't really know. If they did, they'd be able to actually provide some data on it, and they never have been.

Anyway, the basis for your assumption is yet another assumption that CCP is doing something based on some third assumed data that may or may not exist…

…not exactly the most solid foundation, I'd say.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#71 - 2013-11-10 12:39:11 UTC
why on earth would you take character distribution seriously in a game where you get a base of three, anyway?

i totally don't whore on highsec incursions with my alt, bro. 100% legit.

forums.  serious business.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2013-11-10 12:44:14 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
why on earth would you take character distribution seriously in a game where you get a base of three, anyway?

i totally don't ***** on highsec incursions with my alt, bro. 100% legit.

Pretty much. And that's why the whole assumed translation from 65% highsec characters into [some inflated number] of highsec players is so laughable, and why I just can't take any argument based on those numbers — usually in the form of an appeal to the supposed highsec majority — seriously any more. Lol

…and that's assuming they even get the actual numbers or the unit of analysis correct, which almost never happens.
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#73 - 2013-11-10 12:48:23 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Your reasonment was VERY sound in the early 2000.

Since then, more than a decade has passed and the MMOs playerbase composition has changed.
These days the majority are NOT going to have the time to invest in a game and find protection mercs and whatever... just to earn the right to log in and have a greater than 10% chance to survive.


I disagree because in effect that is already the current situation, carebears are currently cannon fodder for highsec gankers, all removing Concord does is allow them to be proactive in protecting themselves
Minxee
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-11-10 12:52:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Minxee
My Future vision for highsec hmmm.....

Just for example - I join the game as an Amarian in a noobcorp and can instantly shoot any Gallente or Minmatar I happen across due to the warring status of the factions.

If I lay down a POS in the name of the faction to do industry, the only protection I may have will be down the a smallish timer and the hopefully timely arrival of fellow amarians hanging out in the corp/faction chat channel (which receieved a automated warning and evemail saying that a structure in x system was reinforced). Esentially I am part of the Amarian Navy (or whatever)...

If I head to lowsec I may choose to join some pirate faction that amarian based, in which case I become a target for all factions and can do raids into highsec.. Depending on the presence the locals have I may a few kills or be killed before I have chance..

No cynos, bubbles, caps allowed still hence your structures and worlds are safer.

Oh and we should be able to have some dust presence that counts in highsec as well maybe instead of just the irrelevant public matches.

I guess what i'm saying is highsec should be faction warfare as well to some degree....
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#75 - 2013-11-10 13:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
It's called "doing 1 + 1". If CCP did not go balls out into "restoring The Old Order" is because they have the demographics that show them they shouldn't do it.

Except that it's not 1+1, because that would lead us to the equally safe assumption that highsec only holds about ⅓ of the players. So it's more likely that, like everyone else, don't really know. If they did, they'd be able to actually provide some data on it, and they never have been.

Anyway, the basis for your assumption is yet another assumption that CCP is doing something based on some third assumed data that may or may not exist…

…not exactly the most solid foundation, I'd say.


In case you did not notice, CCP is not an abstract entity.
At the end of the month they have to pay their employees (and they have quite a bad fame about their low wages) and at the end of the quarter they have to report the earnings to the stakeholders.

Doing something affecting "only about 1/3 of the players" would result in a TERRIBLE blunder.
In case you did not notice, CCP is not navigating in good waters as is, they are paying a lot of adverse factors, even some no other game company had to (i.e. CCP silently allowed botting for years, removing those thousands of subs added to the other losses).

Look what happened due to something *minor* compared to turning hi sec into non hi sec: the Incarna flop. CCP had to fire a sizable amount of workers.
Look what's going to happen due to the long predicted DUST flow: more layoffs. And the vamps game is not coming anytime soon. And what CCP has put as assets in their balance statements are goodwill, that is hot air.

Be less shallow when you talk over the heads of RL employees. Just to bring some more pixellated fun to you, they are going to have their lives affected.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#76 - 2013-11-10 13:08:10 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Your reasonment was VERY sound in the early 2000.

Since then, more than a decade has passed and the MMOs playerbase composition has changed.
These days the majority are NOT going to have the time to invest in a game and find protection mercs and whatever... just to earn the right to log in and have a greater than 10% chance to survive.


I disagree because in effect that is already the current situation, carebears are currently cannon fodder for highsec gankers, all removing Concord does is allow them to be proactive in protecting themselves


I have been in FW for a long time. It's like living a peek of what EvE would become.

I could stay alive and keep playing with any degree of success ONLY because I had a strong, organized corp backing me up.

Forcing the majority who don't have this infrastructure behind them to become farmables is not going to make the game any more popular than is now.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#77 - 2013-11-10 13:10:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sure it was, because prior to the first round of rebalancing, the Catalyst was about as dangerous as a pile of silk handkerchiefs.


yeah, i was probably thinking thrashers. hulkageddon V seems so quaint in this days and age.

i even lost an untanked retty to T1 200mm autocannon. a papery husk of a ship it was in those days.

forums.  serious business.

Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#78 - 2013-11-10 13:25:52 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Forcing the majority who don't have this infrastructure behind them to become farmables is not going to make the game any more popular than is now.


The point is that they are farmables already with no means of defence

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this
Deunan Tenephais
#79 - 2013-11-10 13:31:04 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The future vision of highsec? A sea of autopiloting and pseudobotting characters performing acts of tedium on an infinite loop, interrupted only by indignant shrieking should the terrifying bogeymen of encouraging players to 'interact with others' or 'adapt to changes', or 'think for yourself' be either introduced or even suggested.

I do not know if this is goons propaganda, you trying to troll or if you are really that delusional about the hisec population.
Kind enough to enlighten me ?
Krimishkev
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2013-11-10 13:42:33 UTC
As a significant part of CCP's subscriber base, I cannot see why anyone would want to alienate those casual gamer subscriptions and more less have them quit paying or buying plex and funding the game that we all play. Do people not realize that the less revenue CCP get every month from subscriptions the less revenue CCP can allocate toward development or new features? Are people seriously this dense?

There is a HUGE amount of space allocated in EVE for direct player interaction, we call it low-sec, and null-sec. So basically what people want is to be able to terrorize easy targets and ROFL all the way to the complete stagnation of EVE Online development. These burn high-sec advocates are ignorant, self-absorbed, psuedo-warriors who want easy kills and laughs without realizing the consequences of their lame ideas.

The best thing about EVE is that there is tiers of gameplay styles, and it invites a vast differential in the player base keeping the money coming in to fund new development.

Get off your "elitist" horse and go self-mutilate (in-game of course).



I am not and advocate for any side, but I realize the benefits of a multi-facet environment in which to interact in a game where "Death is Real".