These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2014-02-28 10:23:08 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

That was a very moronic thing to say.
You're the one that made the astounding claim. I'm just wondering why you think CCP is in bed with the botters. It's quite a conspiracy you have going there.


I said nothing of the sort. You should read things before you spout this nonsense because it just makes you look stupid.
ashley Eoner
#102 - 2014-02-28 10:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

That was a very moronic thing to say.
You're the one that made the astounding claim. I'm just wondering why you think CCP is in bed with the botters. It's quite a conspiracy you have going there.


All he said was that CCP themselves has said that the vast majority of accounts banned for botting were highseccers.

You're the one who decided to take it off on a tangent he didn't imply, in order to attack a strawman.

But when your only basic point is such stupendous lies like "thousands of sandbox MMOs failed for every one themepark MMO", I'd be trying to attack a strawman too.

Oh so accounts banned which are only those that have been caught. Did you know that there's much more concentration of people in highsec to report those bots? Think that might skew the numbers some?

He said "80% of bots" which is a hard number not "I think 80%" or "80% of botters who were caught". Saying "80% of bots are to be found in highsec" is to state a fact which implies detailed evidence. We don't have detailed evidence and neither does CCP otherwise botting wouldn't be an issue. Now that the statement has been corrected my question is no longer relevant.



You clearly have limited experience in the online gaming world if you don't realize that theme parks are a relatively recent addition due to hardware limits. There have been decades of non theme park related MMOs released before themeparks became a fad. Even today non theme park MMOs are still released.


The issue might be that you choose to employ an extremely loose definition for themepark. Since most MMOs tend to fail that would allow for you to group a lot into the "OMG THEMEPARKS ALWAYS FAIL" argument.


EDIT : Would you care to clarify what parameters you're using to classify a MMORPG as a themepark?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#103 - 2014-02-28 10:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
So how about listing of a few (dozen) more of those sandbox "MMOs" you were telling me that fail by the hundreds and/or thousands for every themepark MMO that has gone belly up?

And don't try to bullshit me by saying that a multi-user dungeon counts somehow. The first M in MMO means Massively. 30 people playing Rifleman at a community college in the 90s isn't an MMO.

Because otherwise, you're just lying through your crooked teeth, and themeparks always fail.

"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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#104 - 2014-02-28 10:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
What hardware limits?

Theampark MMOs are almost as old as the internet...

As for bots, CCP grabs most of them without people reporting them. Their bot detection systems are rather good and most simply vanish without a word. So no, you cannot just brush that aside, we know where most of the bots live.
ashley Eoner
#105 - 2014-02-28 10:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So how about listing of a few (dozen) more of those sandbox "MMOs" you were telling me that fail by the hundreds and/or thousands for every themepark MMO that has gone belly up?

And don't try to bullshit me by saying that a multi-user dungeon counts somehow. The first M in MMO means Massively. 30 people playing Rifleman at a community college in the 90s isn't an MMO.

Because otherwise, you're just lying through your crooked teeth, and themeparks always fail.
I'm not familiar with rifleman so I give you props on that one.

MUDs were MMORPGS for their time. Just like +20 years from now we'll laugh at the measly 5k people per server.

WOW is clearly not failing. Aion stopped failing once it catered to casuals. Lineage 2 a competitor to WoW failed due to being too hardcore and only survived in a limited function cause of catering to more casuals. Even UO went casual due to losses.

I need a definition for themepark before I can really list anything.


The fact is people aren't interested in playing hardcore games like the old days when you were forced to do so due to hardware and creative limitations. Most people aren't willing to throw their life away so they can have a second job as a slave in a computer game. Even EVE has catered to the casuals since the early days and has grown as a result.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#106 - 2014-02-28 10:54:01 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

I need a definition for themepark before I can really list anything.



Why? You're singlehandedly (re)defining sandbox, so why would you need my help?

"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.
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#107 - 2014-02-28 11:00:19 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
PREFACE FOR PERSPECTIVE: I have made (and continue to make) all of my isk PvPing by baiting high-sec mission runners and stealing their ships. I use this isk to fund hellokittyonline's endless rampage in low-sec and PLEX my 3 accounts.

SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:

1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid

2. Knowledge of Game Mechanics - pinning a battleship with a frigate while tanking his entire lvl 4 mission (though this is much easier than it sounds... most of the time)

3. Creativity - because only an idiot would fall for that... right?

4. Risk Management - training 3 accounts and making a large initial investment so that you can execute a ridiculous scheme with no guarentee that this scheme will pay-out enough to plex said accounts or even pay for your initial investment.

THE PROBLEM: Far too many players are mindlessly farming NPCs in an all-but-0-risk environment and there is no longer any incentive for those players to enter a risky environment because they can make far too much bank with little-to-no knowledge about combat or game mechanics. Now this in and of itself wouldn't be a problem in your typical MMO but in EvE these actions slowly but surely dilute the sandbox aspect of the game as players are not required to use any creativity, knowledge, or people skills to move forward in the game. One merely has to play by themselves (IN AN MMO) for a few hours a day in order to afford pretty much anything they desire. Furthermore, the longer players have access to the I-Win button(s), the more subscriptions CCP stands to lose by taking it away (ie: balancing their game becomes a conflict of interest).

CCPs STANCE: Has been to continuously bubble-wrap the risk-averse making it increasingly difficult (in extremely superficial ways) for us content-creators to inject risk into their environment. EXAMPLES: Swapping ships with an orca was nerfed because we were killing too many mission runners, EHP of miners was buffed because we were suiciding too many miners, CONCORD was buffed because we were suiciding too many industrials, mission NPCs aggro mechanics were changed because we were stealing too many LEWTS, crimewatch (and the green safety) was added because too many players were dying inadvertently (even though it was already completely avoidable by simply understanding aggro mechanics). Even when CCP decides to throw us PvPers a bone (Faction Welfare) it all-but-immediately devolves into a cloaked, stabbed, farm-fest. Furthermore, when they add content for the PvEers (Incursions) the isk/hr is completely out of hand, liquid, and 100% riskless.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

TL;DR - Make players have to learn about the game and its mechanics in order to be successful.



Wow. It almost sounds like you are describing Wspace.

Difficult NPCs? Check.
No Bounties/ISK stealable? Check.
Risking being bubbled or ganked on the far side of the hole/on the way to the hole if you aren't watching D-scan? Check.
No Safety nets, anything but supercaps goes? check.

TL: DR Already in place.
ashley Eoner
#108 - 2014-02-28 11:02:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

I need a definition for themepark before I can really list anything.



Why? You're singlehandedly (re)defining sandbox, so why would you need my help?

Well to me a themepark MMO is one that forces you along a singular path. The only MMO I know that is really like that is SWTOR since you have to follow some of the paths to open up planets. In WoW you can just straight run to where ever you want there's no requirement for you to do quests of any kind. Now you do have to do some quests to open up some aspects of the game but guess what? You have to do the same thing with eve. If I want to do the good missions with pirate factions I need grind quests to open that up. IF I want to explore I have to grind up skills to open that path. If I want to pvp I have to grind up skills to follow that path. There''s always a treadmill or artificial limiter.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2014-02-28 11:04:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The biggest thing that prevents EVE being a genuine sandbox is the meta-gaming whereby large (mainly bluesec) entities prefer to coerce CCP into changing/nerfing/buffing aspects of the game to suit their particular needs rather than evolving their own in game solutions.

It can never be a true sandbox when forum whining is allowed to result in game changes.


Tell me again how the tech nerf helped us and how we gain from having to give up our afk domi fleets.



Isn't it slightly disingenuous to suggest that you are losing "your" afk domi fleets when CFC complained endlessly about drone assist and then said they would abuse the mechanic until CCP was forced to change it?
Especially as it was so you could nerf your opponents sentry carrier fleets.
Also you personally hate the Domi and only like megas. Honestly i only see upsides for you here.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-02-28 11:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I Riven I wrote:
Take level 4 missions OUT of highsec.
As well as decrease highsec incursions payment to 1\3.



In Exchange for taking level 4 missions out of high sec and decreasing high security incursion payments.

You will concede to cutting concord response timers in half and limit the amount of active war declarations a corporation/alliance may have to 2.

Give and take. Be fair.


Unrelated items. Each element is a different factor of balance and is to be considered independantly.
This kind of "trsding of advantage" that you endorse is antithetical to good design.

CONCORD timers are fine as they are in high-sec. CONCORDs function is punitive and indirectly limitingnof ganking as a dunctiin of how many ships/players you jeed to organise in order to succeed before CONCORS arrives. Yournsuggestion implies that CONCORD should act preventatively, which is not their function.

War decs are, again, an unrelated issues and being discussed in its own context.

Balance is not a matter of comparinf your interests with mine. It is a matter of a better game for all.

The kind of "advantage trading" your position implies, is abhorrent to good game design.


If you want to nerf a high sec play style you're going to need to offer some concessions from the ganker/griefer play style.

if you're unwilling to negotiate, then nothing will come avail of your requests.

We don't deal with terrorists
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#111 - 2014-02-28 11:09:03 UTC
Silvetica Dian wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The biggest thing that prevents EVE being a genuine sandbox is the meta-gaming whereby large (mainly bluesec) entities prefer to coerce CCP into changing/nerfing/buffing aspects of the game to suit their particular needs rather than evolving their own in game solutions.

It can never be a true sandbox when forum whining is allowed to result in game changes.


Tell me again how the tech nerf helped us and how we gain from having to give up our afk domi fleets.



Isn't it slightly disingenuous to suggest that you are losing "your" afk domi fleets when CFC complained endlessly about drone assist and then said they would abuse the mechanic until CCP was forced to change it?
Especially as it was so you could nerf your opponents sentry carrier fleets.
Also you personally hate the Domi and only like megas. Honestly i only see upsides for you here.


It was overpowered so we abused it. We also have our own carrier blob because again, its overpowered.

We might argue to get these things fixed but untill they do get fixed we will abuse them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2014-02-28 11:10:24 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Divine Entervention wrote:
stuff





We can call it backpayment for all of the nerfs to pvp in high sec and all he nerfs seen in low and null.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#113 - 2014-02-28 11:17:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
stuff





We can call it backpayment for all of the nerfs to pvp in high sec and all he nerfs seen in low and null.


No.

Sorry, but I guess you're just going to have to

#dealwithit

or quit.

I think the server is up. I'm going to go mine, mostly AFK. in high sec.
Salvos Rhoska
#114 - 2014-02-28 11:19:33 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
...


False. Better game design and balance is not a matter of "trading of advantages".

To be incapable of grasping that difference is juvenile, literally, as outlined in Kohlberg's Moral Development.

The universal good of the game goes before all personal entitlements and perceived advantages.
There is no "us against them", in good design, except from the perspective of an individual who is morally limited to perceiving only their own advantage, rather than the betterment of the whole.

Your use of the royal "we" is misplaced. You have no personal army, nor are you empowered or delegated to any position of "negotiating". You represent only yourself, and is apparent from your posts, only your own personal interests, not those of the game and community overall.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2014-02-28 11:19:56 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
stuff





We can call it backpayment for all of the nerfs to pvp in high sec and all he nerfs seen in low and null.


No.

Sorry, but I guess you're just going to have to

#dealwithit

or quit.

I think the server is up. I'm going to go mine, mostly AFK. in high sec.


So we should just let game imbalances remain because why?
Em arr Roids
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2014-02-28 11:24:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Em arr Roids wrote:



Because you guys are greedy and have way more space than you can actually use or need for that matter!


We have 30k pilots in the CFC alone so it stands to reason that at least one area of our space would have a large number of people in it. Fact is that the only place you will find a lot of our pilots is either vfk (our market hub) and our deployment system. Just about all of our space is empty.

Also we have the fact that 80% of bots are to be found in high sec. So if null is where the isk is why are almost all of the bots in high sec?

We have also run some very detailed tests to see exactly how much isk each area will bring in per pilot and high sec will earn you more. All evidence gathered tells us that high sec is the best place to be earning isk when running combat pve.


Come on, 30k alts but never 30k active players!. We know the truth by rough counting all the people active / docked in stations. And futher to that, You guy don't actually get 1500k players online at given time other wise you would have k's of players deployed in warzones during war from CFC alone.

Are you telling me that for example when 2000 (guestimate) CFC members deployed in the last war, the other 28000 members were bearing it up in high sec?
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#117 - 2014-02-28 11:26:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
stuff





We can call it backpayment for all of the nerfs to pvp in high sec and all he nerfs seen in low and null.


No.

Sorry, but I guess you're just going to have to

#dealwithit

or quit.

I think the server is up. I'm going to go mine, mostly AFK. in high sec.


So we should just let game imbalances remain because why?



Because CCP (TM)
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#118 - 2014-02-28 11:27:53 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
...


False. Better game design and balance is not a matter of "trading of advantages".

To be incapable of grasping that difference is juvenile, literally, as outlined in Kohlberg's Moral Development.

The universal good of the game goes before all personal entitlements and perceived advantages.
There is no "us against them", in good design, except from the perspective of an individual who is morally limited to perceiving only their own advantage, rather than the betterment of the whole.

Your use of the royal "we" is misplaced. You have no personal army, nor are you empowered or delegated to any position of "negotiating". You represent only yourself, and is apparent from your posts, only your own personal interests, not those of the game and community overall.


I disagree that the OP's suggestions would lead towards better game play.

I feel that as things are now, it's good enough.

You have your reasons, though they are wrong, you're allowed to believe.

That's a great thing about being in a sandbox, we get to make the choices.

Maybe if you guys cry alot CCP will wipe your nose for you. Doubt it though. I'd bet CCP would see you crying you can't ruin others game play and tell you to stop being so childish and wipe your own nose.
Salvos Rhoska
#119 - 2014-02-28 11:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Just about everyone in EVE has an alt, and for every individual who doesn't, there is another who has plenty of alts to account for that.

The active character base at any given time can reasonably be divided by atleast 2 for an upper appraisal of active players, and reasonably divided far below that as well.

I think, in an effort to retain new players, the common sentiment of telling new players that "yes, you can do fine in many areas of the game as a new player" is doing them and new player retention a great injustice (though the intent may be benign and good).

This because there really is no substitute for SP, experience and knowledge.
As other people have expressed in other threads, a lot of activities in EVE are not overtly gated by SP etc, but you will have a very hard time getting much out of them until you have accumulated enough.

I think it would be better to be more directly honest with new players, that they know what they can reasonably accomplish with so little SP, experience and knowledge. Promising them the moon, stars (funny that, in the context of a space game) and soloing a multibillion ISK BS/multimillion SP character in their T1 Rifter is not realistic.

Yes, there is potential for smart, lucky, connected or otherwise "ahead of the curve" new players to leverage a lot more advanced activities out of the game at such an early stage, but they are a small minority, and those players would likely be retained anyways because EVE does infact reward exactly that kind of player (and right that it is so).

But for the majority of players, there should be no illusion cast, that EVE isn't an accumalative game that takes time and effort, concretely, to develop a character, to learn and understand the encyclopedic minutae of the games systems, and even more such to actually put that knowledge into practical application in order to garner experience.

I think this would help retain players. Many feel they "fail" or can't get anywhere, because they have been setup with unrealistic expectations. If they rather where encouraged to understand the sandbox and accumalative nature of EVE, they would rather measure their progress in what they CAN realistically achieve, and be more content with that as a stepping stone onto later and greater things, and be perfectly happy with that gradual, personal, development.

Divine Entervention wrote:
...

L4 Missioning in High-Sec and Incursions in High-Sec, are both too lucrative with too little risk.

That is a conclusion derived from as objective a comparison of risk/reward to other activities, as possible.
Its not about "letting people play how they want to".
Its about keeping the fundamental nature of risk/reward in EVE at an optimum.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2014-02-28 11:41:56 UTC
Em arr Roids wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Em arr Roids wrote:



Because you guys are greedy and have way more space than you can actually use or need for that matter!


We have 30k pilots in the CFC alone so it stands to reason that at least one area of our space would have a large number of people in it. Fact is that the only place you will find a lot of our pilots is either vfk (our market hub) and our deployment system. Just about all of our space is empty.

Also we have the fact that 80% of bots are to be found in high sec. So if null is where the isk is why are almost all of the bots in high sec?

We have also run some very detailed tests to see exactly how much isk each area will bring in per pilot and high sec will earn you more. All evidence gathered tells us that high sec is the best place to be earning isk when running combat pve.


Come on, 30k alts but never 30k active players!. We know the truth by rough counting all the people active / docked in stations. And futher to that, You guy don't actually get 1500k players online at given time other wise you would have k's of players deployed in warzones during war from CFC alone.

Are you telling me that for example when 2000 (guestimate) CFC members deployed in the last war, the other 28000 members were bearing it up in high sec?


That 30k does not include the tens of thousands of neutral alts or any renters. The number of CFC deployed in the last war was much higher than 2k and yes, a large bulk were left home to defend our space.