These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Sandbox is Becoming a Themepark

First post
Author
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2014-02-28 21:25:49 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
But isk has to be injected for the amount of high income players to increase. If isk is merely changing hands the amount of high income players remains constant, as does the value of the isk itself, and subsequently the things you purchase with said isk.
Actually, some of the highest income players make their isk from taking advantage of isk transfers rather than isk injection. And if your plan of transferring bounties to tradable loot actually has any measure of success, it will mean increasing the number of trades greatly creating more room for others to prosper just from that activity alone.
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#262 - 2014-02-28 21:27:44 UTC
Evilishah wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Funny how OP claims PVE is zero risk, then goes on about how he gets PVE players to leave their ships and so on. Kind of a oxymoron, eh? You are the risk OP, as well as gankers. It's far from zero risk.


It isn't though.

Eve is such that there is inherent risk in virtually everything. Invest too much in a market that crashes and you can lose a ton of isk. Undock in a spendy ship and there is the possibility of a suicide gank. Take a big ship into low, there's a real chance you could be tackled before you align and warp.

That said, high sec is incredibly safe relative to the rest of Eve. So they aren't mutually exclusive (OPs comments and OPs actions), like you seem to think they are.

I think OP takes it a bit too far, and I agree with some of the newer player safety nets (like safety and lowsec pop-ups), as sandbox does not necessarily mean "take advantage of a day 1 player for lulz".

But OP is correct that this game has an inverse risk/reward set-up. Some of the easiest and safest content in the game is the most valuable (lvl 4s) while some of the most dangerous is less rewarded (90% of low-sec, Nullsec Exploration).

I don't think it is unreasonable, nor have I heard one good argument against this, that risk-averse activities should reward less than more dangerous endeavors.

No not really. I feel safer in blue sec than in hi-sec. Said it 1000 times and the reasons are obvious. First one is there is just to much information to process in a busy hi-sec system. To many ways to be fooled or decieved in hi-sec.

In blue sec you have intel channels barking out intruders and either they are blue or an enemy. I dont have to wait for a potential enemy to be on grid before I know what might or might not be a bad situation. The only exception is awoxer.

So to say hi-sec is safer than blue-sec would be wrong and mis-leading. You guys seem to confuse the fact of concord stepping in making safer but they only kill the attacker after the gank.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#263 - 2014-02-28 21:28:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Because if they're even telling 25% of the truth, they want a single player game. I know all this "you're playing the game wrong! no you are!" point is there, but some people literally are playing the game wrong.


If CCP has engineered an environment where someone can play the game as a PvEr, fighting only NPCs, how is that playing the game wrong?

It's a perfectly legitimate play style. Is it single player? No, not even close because they are buying weapons, ships, ammunition which has an impact on the economy.

Obviously the break down with you is you're applying your thought process onto others. You feel that since you do not wish to play the game in a fashion centered around PvE, that anyone who does so is wrong. This is your ignorance, a highlight of your inability to understand what EVE offers and that some people will choose to play differently than you.
Victoria Thorne
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#264 - 2014-02-28 21:33:17 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:

High sec should be just that high security, carebear land, hello kitty online, leave me alone to do my own thing.

For those who want pvp there is null and low. I'm sorry if you can't making a living in pvp because no one is willing to risk an expensive boat for mutual pvp but that's pvpers own fault. If no one is flying anything expensive to pvp in why do gankers need those billion isk care bear payouts anyway?

Fact is gankers enjoy the risk free and always having the upper hand life of ganking.

As I mentioned before I do think low/null could use an isk/hour buff to encourage care bears to enter space where it is fully understood you are mutually agreeing to pvp.


I'd just like to let you know that you're part of the problem.

You don't get to be safe anywhere. If you think you should be, you're playing the wrong game.

PvP is everywhere. And it should be. The color of the number in the upper left hand of the screen doesn't mean you get stop trying to defend yourself.


Agreed but what defence is there to a suicide gank? What defence is there from getting out played in a mission ship vs a pvp ship in a LE?

The high sec fights in eve are so 1 sided it's not even worthy of the term pvp


Suicide Gank - Two ways, don't be there or don't be profitable to kill. Preferably, both.

The second, use a ship that is capable of both, if you plan to fight. It will generally hurt your mission running efficiency a bit, though. Most of the time, if your fit is pvp capable, a ninja will scan you, sit for a minute while they think about it, and leave.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#265 - 2014-02-28 21:35:27 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:

High sec should be just that high security, carebear land, hello kitty online, leave me alone to do my own thing.


Not just no, but 'hell no' Sir.

Have a great day.

YK
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#266 - 2014-02-28 21:35:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:

High sec should be just that high security, carebear land, hello kitty online, leave me alone to do my own thing.

For those who want pvp there is null and low. I'm sorry if you can't making a living in pvp because no one is willing to risk an expensive boat for mutual pvp but that's pvpers own fault. If no one is flying anything expensive to pvp in why do gankers need those billion isk care bear payouts anyway?

Fact is gankers enjoy the risk free and always having the upper hand life of ganking.

As I mentioned before I do think low/null could use an isk/hour buff to encourage care bears to enter space where it is fully understood you are mutually agreeing to pvp.


I'd just like to let you know that you're part of the problem.

You don't get to be safe anywhere. If you think you should be, you're playing the wrong game.

PvP is everywhere. And it should be. The color of the number in the upper left hand of the screen doesn't mean you get stop trying to defend yourself.


I was wondering where you were. You've been missing all the fun. Matrix Skye even asked me to run for CSM. Holy **** can you imagine? LOL.


Yeah, I saw that, it was pretty funny. And I've been asleep, I work nights now.

I must say though, I really find some of the comments about what PvE players claim they want to be hilarious.

Because if they're even telling 25% of the truth, they want a single player game. I know all this "you're playing the game wrong! no you are!" point is there, but some people literally are playing the game wrong.

They're playing Super Mario, diving off the bottomless pits, and claiming it's a spelunking simulator rather than admit they're doing it wrong.


I love market pvp, i love the corp aspect, i love grouping with corp mates for missions, i love small roam pvp, i love the alliance pvp and fw (even though i don't do these they sound awesome.)

I don't love having my billion isk mission ship being blown up when there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't love being horrified to touch anything in high sec for fear of turning suspect.

It's nothing to with social interaction or wanting a single player game it's about having a fun, fair, fighting chance.
hellokittyonline
New Order Mining Authority
Safety.
#267 - 2014-02-28 21:37:05 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:

Agreed but what defence is there to a suicide gank? What defence is there from getting out played in a mission ship vs a pvp ship in a LE?

The high sec fights in eve are so 1 sided it's not even worthy of the term pvp


A) Do not give them the LE in the first place

B) Literally everyone in the game can shoot at a suspect, just bring friends

C) In reguards to suicide ganking. Do not fly a ship fit with modules worth roughly 2x the amount of isk it would take to blow you up (as you dont need an x-type shield booster to run missions).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#268 - 2014-02-28 21:39:57 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:

Agreed but what defence is there to a suicide gank? What defence is there from getting out played in a mission ship vs a pvp ship in a LE?

The high sec fights in eve are so 1 sided it's not even worthy of the term pvp


You can't be serious.

How about you use that handy little thing called D-scan, to notice when I drop combat probes on you? Maybe when 5 neg tens enter the system, you might want to micro jump away from the entry point?

Nevermind the whole "bother to fit a tank and orbit your asteroid" part.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#269 - 2014-02-28 21:41:23 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
I love market pvp, i love the corp aspect, i love grouping with corp mates for missions, i love small roam pvp, i love the alliance pvp and fw (even though i don't do these they sound awesome.)

I don't love having my billion isk mission ship being blown up when there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't love being horrified to touch anything in high sec for fear of turning suspect.

It's nothing to with social interaction or wanting a single player game it's about having a fun, fair, fighting chance.


Natural Beer, can I call you Natty Light? Benny Ohu has often suggested that PvE ships should be able to fit for PvP without too much impact on their PvE efficiency. I assume by your post that this is something you would agree with. Would I be accurate?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

hellokittyonline
New Order Mining Authority
Safety.
#270 - 2014-02-28 21:45:03 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
But isk has to be injected for the amount of high income players to increase. If isk is merely changing hands the amount of high income players remains constant, as does the value of the isk itself, and subsequently the things you purchase with said isk.

Actually, some of the highest income players make their isk from taking advantage of isk transfers rather than isk injection. And if your plan of transferring bounties to tradable loot actually has any measure of success, it will mean increasing the number of trades greatly creating more room for others to prosper just from that activity alone.


You still fail to realize that the actual amount of high income players (as a % of the population) cannot increase if the amount of pure isk in the economy stays constant in reguard to the amount of players.

If the amount of isk stays constant relative to the amount of players in the game, then one only becomes rich by somehow procuring the riches of others (thus making the "others" less rich and keeping the amount of rich players constant).
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#271 - 2014-02-28 21:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
right, ive seen dual-rep 250k EHP omni-tanked paladins in bastion mode get ganked in a 0.8 system trying to run missions. took a couple of tornadoes and like 3 catalysts loaded with neuts, so after the tornadoes alphad the rats finished him off before he could come out of bastion, couldnt rep because he was neuted.


0.8 space assuming pre-pulled concord, lets assume 15 second response time. If the catalysts neut the paladin prior to the nado's firing, concord will already be on grid and they'll only get one shot off each. I assume you mean that they had no buffer and a bunch of active hardeners and the "couple" of tornados was actually more than a couple? I call bullshit at least on the way you described it. Even if you aren't exaggerating and a paladin with less than 24K ehp passive buffer against its weakest resist could get up to 250K ehp by turning modules on, that's still a 5v1 fight expending at least 250 million isk. Props to the gankers for organizing that.

I've seen a 32 person gank fleet of catalsyts and talos's fail a gank on a golem (was either a 0,5 or 0.6 system with around 10 concord groups pre-pulled). I really don't think any battleship should be able to tank 12,000 dps for 20 seconds.

Quote:
I don't love having my billion isk mission ship being blown up when there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't love being horrified to touch anything in high sec for fear of turning suspect.

There are plenty of things you can do about it. Fit some passive buffer, use mwd+cloak travel fits, use d-scan when missioning, keep safety set to green. Shoot white wrecks when people invade your mission. CCP was even nice enough to make it so you can have your drones on aggressive again!

As for the suspect thing, that's why safety exists.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2014-02-28 21:51:55 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
But isk has to be injected for the amount of high income players to increase. If isk is merely changing hands the amount of high income players remains constant, as does the value of the isk itself, and subsequently the things you purchase with said isk.

Actually, some of the highest income players make their isk from taking advantage of isk transfers rather than isk injection. And if your plan of transferring bounties to tradable loot actually has any measure of success, it will mean increasing the number of trades greatly creating more room for others to prosper just from that activity alone.


You still fail to realize that the actual amount of high income players (as a % of the population) cannot increase if the amount of pure isk in the economy stays constant in reguard to the amount of players.

If the amount of isk stays constant relative to the amount of players in the game, then one only becomes rich by somehow procuring the riches of others (thus making the "others" less rich and keeping the amount of rich players constant).
You are right there, as the population grows things would stagnate. Of course than means your plan of shifting bounty income to loot would fall on it's face, or rather is one of several reasons. Also it may even have the glorious side effect of ruining individual incomes making ships more relatively expensive compared to the average income, and thus making it more difficult to support PvP, maybe even making people more risk averse.

It would be fun to see that exasperated by isk still funneling out of the economy.

Though I wonder if those reduced plex prices would last with the reduced return on the real money investment.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#273 - 2014-02-28 21:55:40 UTC
firepup82 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.



they have made more in 1 release than eve has in its entire life "taking only into account subs" soo id rather be making billions and losing millions than possibly growing. everyone states growing yet i bet 25% of the "growth" is people getting more accounts which is not growth at all.

so again your point here i'm not understanding even with millions of subs lost.. id say the turnover rate is just as high if not higher in eve because of people like the op who make it their goal to ruin other players game but that is what makes eve great. and even with the millions lost the player base is still 10 times larger than eve.

and beyond that point i dotn know anyone that plays wow with more than 1 account.. i know eve players with over 10 couple with over 30 so i think saying eve is "growing" can be a bit of a reach

Not going to argue this, although I'm a former WoW player who made a very conscious decision and left a great community for good in order to join EVE. WoW is just a game in ruins. Leaving those ingame friends behind was the hard part. But discussing that would derail the thread and not lead to anything constructive here.

But multiboxing was not that uncommon in WoW. Mostly in battlegrounds and often shamans. Especially elemental shamans were quite popular among multiboxers. People usually fielded groups of 4-6.

Remove standings and insurance.

ashley Eoner
#274 - 2014-02-28 21:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
firepup82 wrote:
WoW has lost millions of subs in the last two years and every MMO that copies it crashes in less than a month. EVE is the only MMO to do nothing but gro
WoW gained 200k subscribers last year.

Aion didn't try to copy wow and it crashed spectacularly (after making sales records and such). The reason? Because Ncsoft listened to the hardcore crowd and left it a massive grindfest. Who needs game content (THEME PARKS ARE BAD!!!!)? The playerbase will create it!!! Them lazy carebears want to make it easier DON"T!! The only reason the game rebounded was because Ncsoft stopped listening to the small group of hardcores and went about fixing some aspects of the game.

baltec1 wrote:
They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.


Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..

baltec1 wrote:
When it comes to combat pve high sec offers better rewards than null.
You know if your corporation wasn't renting out all those areas and instead you were able to run them you'd make way more in nullsec. Hence the nerfs to nullsec and posts by CCP. You have only your corporation to blame for that.


Eve is nowhere near being a themepark.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#275 - 2014-02-28 21:57:43 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..




The person who told me that "literally hundreds" of sandbox MMOs have died for every themepark MMO that has died doesn't get to tell anyone to use a calculator.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

hellokittyonline
New Order Mining Authority
Safety.
#276 - 2014-02-28 21:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: hellokittyonline
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
But isk has to be injected for the amount of high income players to increase. If isk is merely changing hands the amount of high income players remains constant, as does the value of the isk itself, and subsequently the things you purchase with said isk.

Actually, some of the highest income players make their isk from taking advantage of isk transfers rather than isk injection. And if your plan of transferring bounties to tradable loot actually has any measure of success, it will mean increasing the number of trades greatly creating more room for others to prosper just from that activity alone.


You still fail to realize that the actual amount of high income players (as a % of the population) cannot increase if the amount of pure isk in the economy stays constant in reguard to the amount of players.

If the amount of isk stays constant relative to the amount of players in the game, then one only becomes rich by somehow procuring the riches of others (thus making the "others" less rich and keeping the amount of rich players constant).
You are right there, as the population grows things would stagnate. Of course than means your plan of shifting bounty income to loot would fall on it's face, or rather is one of several reasons. Also it may even have the glorious side effect of ruining individual incomes making ships more relatively expensive compared to the average income, and thus making it more difficult to support PvP, maybe even making people more risk averse.

It would be fun to see that exasperated by isk still funneling out of the economy.

Though I wonder if those reduced plex prices would last with the reduced return on the real money investment.

This is quite simply not the case as there is already FAR MORE isk injection then there needs to be, and if there needed to be more I'm SUURE CCP would be ENTIRELY willing to inject it.

I want the bounty system removed, but isk still needs to be injected, though relative to the amount of new players and not just at random to give farmers more incentive to play (because more isk means higher prices that they too have to pay thus there's no real increase in incentive, only a decrease in incentive for new players).
ashley Eoner
#277 - 2014-02-28 22:00:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..




The person who told me that "literally hundreds" of sandbox MMOs have died for every themepark MMO that has died doesn't get to tell anyone to use a calculator.
I showed you how that was clearly true and you then proceeded to ignore the entire post.
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#278 - 2014-02-28 22:00:57 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:
I love market pvp, i love the corp aspect, i love grouping with corp mates for missions, i love small roam pvp, i love the alliance pvp and fw (even though i don't do these they sound awesome.)

I don't love having my billion isk mission ship being blown up when there is nothing i can do about it.
I don't love being horrified to touch anything in high sec for fear of turning suspect.

It's nothing to with social interaction or wanting a single player game it's about having a fun, fair, fighting chance.


Natural Beer, can I call you Natty Light? Benny Ohu has often suggested that PvE ships should be able to fit for PvP without too much impact on their PvE efficiency. I assume by your post that this is something you would agree with. Would I be accurate?


For sure if i felt my ship could pvp effectively enough to at least give me a chance to win then of course. However what ganker is going to pick a fight they could potentially lose?

I used to play a game where pvp was everywhere there was no safety at all and i loved it. However, the pvp was far simpler and players could warp out at any time making it far harder to erase 10 hours of someones life in xp. There was pretty much no penalty to killing someone and the penalties for dieing were really harsh.

I'm not opposed to player vs player in anyway i'm opposed to player vs pylon
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#279 - 2014-02-28 22:01:22 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
I want the bounty system removed, but isk still needs to be injected, though relative to the amount of new players and not just at random to give farmers more incentive to play (because more isk means higher prices that they too have to pay thus theirs no real increase in incentive, only a decrease in incentive for new players).


Where is the ISK going to come from if not from bounties?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#280 - 2014-02-28 22:01:46 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
firepup82 wrote:
WoW has lost millions of subs in the last two years and every MMO that copies it crashes in less than a month. EVE is the only MMO to do nothing but gro
WoW gained 200k subscribers last year.

Aion didn't try to copy wow and it crashed spectacularly (after making sales records and such). The reason? Because Ncsoft listened to the hardcore crowd and left it a massive grindfest. Who needs game content (THEME PARKS ARE BAD!!!!)? The playerbase will create it!!! Them lazy carebears want to make it easier DON"T!! The only reason the game rebounded was because Ncsoft stopped listening to the small group of hardcores and went about fixing some aspects of the game.

baltec1 wrote:
They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.


Come on again? They have 7.8 million current subscribers with a peak of 12 million. In your world that is somehow a loss of 7 million. Do try to use a calculator and see what 12-7.8 is..

baltec1 wrote:
When it comes to combat pve high sec offers better rewards than null.
You know if your corporation wasn't renting out all those areas and instead you were able to run them you'd make way more in nullsec. Hence the nerfs to nullsec and posts by CCP. You have only your corporation to blame for that.


Eve is nowhere near being a themepark.

I googled "wow subscription graph".

http://www.pcgamesn.com/wow/why-world-warcraft-losing-subscribers-and-how-can-blizzard-fix-it

http://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/

http://www.powerwordgold.net/2013/07/world-of-warcraft-subscribers-2005-2013.html

Those were the top three results. All of them show WoW losing millions of subscribers. 1.8 million lost between Q4 2012 and Q4 2013.

Where's your data from?

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)