These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gevlon=Carebear Extraordinaire?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-05-14 13:39:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Why am i responding in this thread. Simple, because EVE is what it is and to let the idea that something is wrong because it weeds out weakness just isn't in my nature lol.

I can accept that as a position, and that is a perfectly fine view to have.

Quote:
And yes, helping a new player get to good PVE content in a short amount of time is relevant. That fact that it moots your argument notwithstanding.

7 weeks, and that only with the guidance of an advanced player, does not cut it. It's an exceptional example that you are trying to pass off as a typical case. It does not address the core problem in the OP (which you've now admitted you do not consider to be a problem in the first place).

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Solecist Project
#82 - 2014-05-14 13:40:03 UTC
This really makes me wonder if I should start a blog too.

Can't be even a quarter as bad ... and I don't even need to read his crap to know this.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#83 - 2014-05-14 13:40:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I use the term sandbox to mean "not constrained by mountains of mechanical restrictions". People shouldn't be forced into playing as a group to reap the best rewards. I don't disagree that there's changes that need to be made to encourage more social interaction, but it certainly shouldn't mean that development focus should shift to working on PVE mechanics, since they are by their nature only semi-social. One side will always be AI. So if anything, focus should be shifted to generating more income through meaningful PvP, so those little red crosses you shoot have a player shooting back.


yep, meaningful pvp that nobody experiences because one of their primary ways of funding their pvp experience is completely abhorrent.

"that was a great roam guys, now i'm not going to do anything with you for a week while i grind more isk so i can lose more spaceships". it's simply counter productive to punish people for working together [anywhere, not just in missions] instead of encouraging them to group up and do ~stuff~.


If, in a game where a freaking stealth bomber, Drake or Caracal in faction warfare can make an ungoldly amount of isk ln an hour or where you can slip a newb friendly Gnosis into low sec to run anoms that you don't even have to scan (which sometimes escalate into complexes the same Gnosis can do and that could drop a pithum or gistum c type invul), there is no excuse for some guy having to grind for a week for pvp ships.

Watch this video featuring a BATTLECRUISER and tell me how a new player can't do this.

Especially since tiercide made tech1 cruisers and frigs viable. PVP is cheap now.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#84 - 2014-05-14 13:43:58 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
[quote=Jenn aSide]
7 weeks, and that only with the guidance of an advanced player, does not cut it. It's an exceptional example that you are trying to pass off as a typical case. It does not address the core problem in the OP (which you've now admitted you do not consider to be a problem in the first place).


Who said anything about 'typical cases". It simply demonstrates that, for the people suited to EVE, there is no problem.

The 'problem' lies with the kinds of people who should not be playing EVE in the 1st place. You don't increase the quality of a sandbox game by making it better for people too impatient to stick with it (or two dumb to ask experienced players for help). You make a sandbox game better by adding more tools and encouraging more sandbox players to try it.
Dave Stark
#85 - 2014-05-14 13:44:02 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
This really makes me wonder if I should start a blog too.

Can't be even a quarter as bad ... and I don't even need to read his crap to know this.

i've had that thought myself, but i'm a terrible writer. (my posting history is proof of that)

Jenn aSide wrote:


If, in a game where a freaking stealth bomber, Drake or Caracal in faction warfare can make an ungoldly amount of isk ln an hour or where you can slip a newb friendly Gnosis into low sec to run anoms that you don't even have to scan (which sometimes escalate into complexes the same Gnosis can do and that could drop a pithum or gistum c type invul), there is no excuse for some guy having to grind for a week for pvp ships.

Watch this video featuring a BATTLECRUISER and tell me how a new player can't do this.

Especially since tiercide made tech1 cruisers and frigs viable. PVP is cheap now.


i didn't say they couldn't. i'm just arguing that there's no reason to continue to have co-operation discouraged in any area of the game, and that encouraging people to co-operate regardless of what they are doing is beneficial to the NPE, player retention, content creation, and player interaction.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-05-14 13:46:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
If, in a game where a freaking stealth bomber, Drake or Caracal in faction warfare can make an ungoldly amount of isk ln an hour or where you can slip a newb friendly Gnosis into low sec to run anoms that you don't even have to scan (which sometimes escalate into complexes the same Gnosis can do and that could drop a pithum or gistum c type invul), there is no excuse for some guy having to grind for a week for pvp ships.

New players flying stealth bombers, Drakes, Caracals? And your link is broken.

The anoms you are talking about.. new players can't run them.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Watch this video featuring a BATTLECRUISER and tell me how a new player can't do this.

L4 missions in a battlecruiser. In what universe is a "new player" working on these? Definitely not in EVE.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2014-05-14 13:48:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Who said anything about 'typical cases". It simply demonstrates that, for the people suited to EVE, there is no problem.

The original post talks about statistics of new players to EVE. "Typical" is the word of the day for this thread. It is the problem statement.

I think I've heard you loud and clear that "there is no problem". If there is no problem, why are you offering up what seem to be bogus solutions?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#88 - 2014-05-14 13:51:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


i didn't say they couldn't. i'm just arguing that there's no reason to continue to have co-operation discouraged in any area of the game, and that encouraging people to co-operate regardless of what they are doing is beneficial to the NPE, player retention, content creation, and player interaction.


That's a post worthy of Features and Ideas. You know, the kind of post that sees only upsides but no downsides lol.

Malcanis' law bro. Anything you do to try to help new players will get farmed mercilessly by, well, people like me. You take away the 'cooperation penalty' from non-incursion PVE and I promise you I'll find away to make CCP regret it the way people are making them regret the FW rewards scheme lol.

Cooperative rewards work in incursions because of a number of 'checks' such as low availability (there are only some many incursion sites available in EVE at one time) and requiring skilled leadership (the FC has to know what to do even if the shooters in the fleet don't, the LC has to know what to do even if the individual logi pilots are all new ect).

You put cooperative rewards into something 2 newbs can do with proper balance 'checks' like you have with incursions and again I promise you I and people like me will find a way to exploit it. Most EVE PVE content is soloable, cooperative rewards and reward escalating ala WoW would be game breaking. Trust me.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#89 - 2014-05-14 13:55:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Sibyyl wrote:

New players flying stealth bombers, Drakes, Caracals? And your link is broken.

The anoms you are talking about.. new players can't run them.


Goggle "600mil an hour FW".

And since when can newbs not run angel/Serp/Blood DENs? What newb can't fly a Gnosis with meta guns/missile and tech1 drones in short order.

Hint, in a discussion, it helps to know something about the subject matter lol.

Quote:

L4 missions in a battlecruiser. In what universe is a "new player" working on these? Definitely not in EVE.


New Players are running battlecruisers very soon into their EVE life if they are mission runners, hell, many are running batlteships too soon and we have to tell them to slow down in the help channel and in this forums Missions and Complexes forum.

What EVE are you playing? Are you even a PVE player, because it does not sound like it at all.?
Solecist Project
#90 - 2014-05-14 13:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Jenn... you feel really different to me today....

Did the contageious negativity infect you too?

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Marsha Mallow
#91 - 2014-05-14 13:57:25 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Either you think a 50% dropout, 40% isolation statistic is a problem or you don't. This statistic isn't for players who will give CCP 7 weeks to prove whether EVE is a good game or not. So if you want to say HTFU, I don't care about these players who don't belong here anyway... then say that.

No offense, but I'll say that. The 10% who stay and engage in what CCP views as 'the wider game' shouldn't be forced to watch it being dumbed down to cater to the other 90%. Yes the numbers can be improved, but if the 90% demand combat immunity and the ability to pump out ISK unimpeded, it's a step in the wrong direction and one we should challenge. It's a niche game, we don't want it to become mainstream at the demand of that wider demographic. I'm not sure why after a decade CCP should sell out to accomodate their demands.

Even if improvements are made to group PVE rewards, there should always be an element of risk, and the 'problem players' utterly reject that there should be any risk involved. There's a disturbing proportion who reject PVP should even be allowed in certain areas (unless they give permission). This is where the serious disconnect is.

Rather than focusing on re-writing the game to accomodate the expectations of people who aren't even attracted to the sandbox elements in the first place, shouldn't there first be a concerted effort to bring them into the spirit of the thing? If the NPE is scrapped and replaced by something more in keeping with the philosophy of the game, we might see retention stats improve anyway.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Dave Stark
#92 - 2014-05-14 13:59:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


i didn't say they couldn't. i'm just arguing that there's no reason to continue to have co-operation discouraged in any area of the game, and that encouraging people to co-operate regardless of what they are doing is beneficial to the NPE, player retention, content creation, and player interaction.


That's a post worthy of Features and Ideas. You know, the kind of post that sees only upsides but no downsides lol.

Malcanis' law bro. Anything you do to try to help new players will get farmed mercilessly by, well, people like me. You take away the 'cooperation penalty' from non-incursion PVE and I promise you I'll find away to make CCP regret it the way people are making them regret the FW rewards scheme lol.

Cooperative rewards work in incursions because of a number of 'checks' such as low availability (there are only some many incursion sites available in EVE at one time) and requiring skilled leadership (the FC has to know what to do even if the shooters in the fleet don't, the LC has to know what to do even if the individual logi pilots are all new ect).

You put cooperative rewards into something 2 newbs can do with proper balance 'checks' like you have with incursions and again I promise you I and people like me will find a way to exploit it. Most EVE PVE content is soloable, cooperative rewards and reward escalating ala WoW would be game breaking. Trust me.


yeh, i said remove the penalty for co-operation. i didn't say "let's make huge bonuses for fleeting up so no-lifers with 40 accounts can make even more isk/hour".

the point is; there shouldn't be a difference between 10 people flying missions individually, or 10 people flying a mission together. currently, there is, and i'd wager money that it's a non-trivially contributing factor to 50% of people quitting after 1 month.

i don't want co-operative rewards, i simply want the removal of co-operative penalties.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#93 - 2014-05-14 14:00:08 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Who said anything about 'typical cases". It simply demonstrates that, for the people suited to EVE, there is no problem.

The original post talks about statistics of new players to EVE. "Typical" is the word of the day for this thread. It is the problem statement.

I think I've heard you loud and clear that "there is no problem". If there is no problem, why are you offering up what seem to be bogus solutions?


There is no problem. The solutions I offer demonstrate that fact. Sandbox players seek solutions they can implement, Themepark players ask for fixes only DEVs can implement.

The fact that EVE chases away the weak is a good thing. Sorry if I'm not following your predefined discussion script.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2014-05-14 14:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gully Alex Foyle
Think of EVE players in a 2x2 matrix.

PVEers vs. PVPers on one axis, and people that hardly ever talk to anybody vs. social dudes on the other.


Generally speaking, almost anyone would agree that social dudes are much better for the game than unsociable types. They are the ones creating the content and all the great EVE stories.

Whether PVPers or PVEers are better for the game is much less clear-cut. I really see no good reason why CCP shouldn't try to increase and please both populations.


EDIT: one box of that matrix is empty, because PVPing by yourself is impossible Smile (solo PVP means you are alone, the other guys usually aren't!). The solo-PVE box contains people that, yeah, probably don't contribute that much to the game. It's a legitimate play style, but I don't think CCP should invest on it as a priority. The other two boxes are both made up of valuable and desirable players, imo.


So as long as EVE remains a single universe where everybody can interact (or mess) with anybody else, I see no downsides in CCP creating better PVE content that encourages social play. Bonus points if they manage to create hybrid PVE/PVP content such as Sabriz's idea in the F&I forums.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#95 - 2014-05-14 14:01:57 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
L4 missions in a battlecruiser. In what universe is a "new player" working on these?
EVE of 2007/2008. It's how I made my first large:ish pile of cash, and back then, missions were a bit harder and BCs a fair bit less capable.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#96 - 2014-05-14 14:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Dave Stark wrote:
]

yeh, i said remove the penalty for co-operation. i didn't say "let's make huge bonuses for fleeting up so no-lifers with 40 accounts can make even more isk/hour".


That is what you are saying, but (like any good F&I post) you don't understand you are saying it.

You think CCP can create a system that benefits cooperation in content that is not contrained the way incursions are? if so, that's just wrong.

Quote:

the point is; there shouldn't be a difference between 10 people flying missions individually, or 10 people flying a mission together. currently, there is, and i'd wager money that it's a non-trivially contributing factor to 50% of people quitting after 1 month.


Yes there shold be a difference. Because missions are an infinite resource unlike incursions. As it is now, if I 'isboxer' 10 accounts sweeping missions (or upgrade system anoms that respawn), I'd take a 'penalty' in that I would not make as much 'per character' isk as 10 guys doing 10 separate anoms.

With what you suggest, the guy isboxering 10 accounts would make MORE isk than he is right now. I don't use Isbxer but I knew a guy when I was in TEST who did with Nagas in forsaken hubs and dude, you do NOT want that to become common place.

See the problem yet?

Quote:

i don't want co-operative rewards, i simply want the removal of co-operative penalties.
Same thing Dave, and you aren't thinking it through this time.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#97 - 2014-05-14 14:14:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I use the term sandbox to mean "not constrained by mountains of mechanical restrictions". People shouldn't be forced into playing as a group to reap the best rewards. I don't disagree that there's changes that need to be made to encourage more social interaction, but it certainly shouldn't mean that development focus should shift to working on PVE mechanics, since they are by their nature only semi-social. One side will always be AI. So if anything, focus should be shifted to generating more income through meaningful PvP, so those little red crosses you shoot have a player shooting back.


yep, meaningful pvp that nobody experiences because one of their primary ways of funding their pvp experience is completely abhorrent.

"that was a great roam guys, now i'm not going to do anything with you for a week while i grind more isk so i can lose more spaceships". it's simply counter productive to punish people for working together [anywhere, not just in missions] instead of encouraging them to group up and do ~stuff~.
Reread that quote. "more income through meaningful PvP" is the bit you seem to have missed.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#98 - 2014-05-14 14:16:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yes there shold be a difference. Because missions are an infinite resource unlike incursions. As it is now, if I 'isboxer' 10 accounts sweeping missions (or upgrade system anoms that respawn), I'd take a 'penalty' in that I would make as much 'per character' isk as 10 guys doing 10 separate anoms.

With what you suggest, the guy isboxering 10 accounts would make MORE isk than he is right now. I don't use Isbxer but I knew a guy when I was in TEST who did with Nagas in forsaken hubs and dude, you do NOT want that to become common place.

See the problem yet?

no, the guy with isboxer wouldn't be making "more money".

the current situation; he runs 10 separate missions on 10 separate accounts because that's optimal.
the new situation would be; he does the same because it's the same, or he puts all 10 accounts in to 1 mission because it's the same.
he doesn't make more at all. because all we've done is remove the penalty for co-operation.

alternatively, if you want to insist that he'll make "more isk" (although we both know it's bullshit) just drop the rewards on missions such that it further encourages social interaction and co-operation. win/win.
Dave Stark
#99 - 2014-05-14 14:17:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I use the term sandbox to mean "not constrained by mountains of mechanical restrictions". People shouldn't be forced into playing as a group to reap the best rewards. I don't disagree that there's changes that need to be made to encourage more social interaction, but it certainly shouldn't mean that development focus should shift to working on PVE mechanics, since they are by their nature only semi-social. One side will always be AI. So if anything, focus should be shifted to generating more income through meaningful PvP, so those little red crosses you shoot have a player shooting back.


yep, meaningful pvp that nobody experiences because one of their primary ways of funding their pvp experience is completely abhorrent.

"that was a great roam guys, now i'm not going to do anything with you for a week while i grind more isk so i can lose more spaceships". it's simply counter productive to punish people for working together [anywhere, not just in missions] instead of encouraging them to group up and do ~stuff~.
Reread that quote. "more income through meaningful PvP" is the bit you seem to have missed.

i didn't miss it, but having more income through meaningful pvp doesn't mean the issue we're discussing magically vanishes.
Solecist Project
#100 - 2014-05-14 14:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Tippia wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
L4 missions in a battlecruiser. In what universe is a "new player" working on these?
EVE of 2007/2008. It's how I made my first large:ish pile of cash, and back then, missions were a bit harder and BCs a fair bit less capable.

Did lvl4s in Artillery hurricanes in 2010/2011.

No biggy. Even scanned down missions in dodixie in my high RoF faction turret fitted cane...
... and ran them faster than most in battleships.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia