Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The premise is actually conditional: If player attrition is too high, then the devs should, can and will do some things. Here are some things they can do if player attrition is too high.

The analysis of "some things" does not stand and fall on if player attrition is too high or not.

You could be critical of the leap between psychological impact and people impacted deciding to spend time doing other things than play Eve. It is however a reasonable assumption.

Eve-offline does not show attrition directly, so I could not verify if it was high or not. I know hitting bots and multiboxing has a pretty decent impact on the number of online "pilots".

Just lol.

"Implict threat is major EVE Problem."



No, Jergens. One of the pillars of this game is not a major problem, no matter how many times you repeat that cut and pasted doggerel.

If I see it again you get reported for spamming.

Teckos
Straw man arguments are not constructive.

Implicit threat is derived from afk cloaky camping and a number of things.
Implicit threat is not the only cause of player attrition
I am not suggesting player attrition caused by implicit threat is higher, lower or the same as it was yesterday, last month or in 2009.
I am merely suggesting that there are tested remedies if developers decide implicit threat caused attrition is too high.


We don't know if players are leaving the game in droves. All we know is that fewer pilots are online simultaneously. It could be for healthy reasons (less bots, less multiboxing, less need for multiple accounts, less need to have eve as a 2nd job...or only job in what probably is a scary number of cases), but is probably combined with a generally more competitive gaming market (there are decent alternatives to eve).

Is someone sad that their bad ideas and wild conjecture has no likes?

I checked the weather report, but it didn't say anything about rain with sodium.

Updated, expanded and edited.

It has emerged that the AFK cloaky camping is not problem when viewed in isolation. However, implicit threat derived from afk cloaky camping and other game features (perhaps most spectacularly was the implicit threat derived from the perceived danger of hot dropping supers) is problematic.

The concept implicit threat has been examined thoroughly in some areas, and continuing to consider it in other areas has strong merit. Particularly in areas that are important to the majority of EvE players. This is due to the likelihood that implicit threat does play a role in player attrition.

Implicit risk should likely be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option.

Implicit risk seems to be at acceptable levels in wormhole space.

This is surprising. Wormhole local considered in isolation increases implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space must have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels.

An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes

1. Rats 2.0
The sleeper lesson:
Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage ships in rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit)
More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels
A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish

These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready.

2. Closing gates
Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson:
Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links.
A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut)

Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system.

3. Natural phenomena
Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation.

Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers.

4. No clones
The ability to swap clones increases implicit threat. Players risk trapping themselves into flying with implants they cannot afford to use or not flying at all (because they want to keep an expensive set active the next 24 hours) due to the 24 flip over time between possible swaps. A trap a wormhole pilot avoids by clones being semi-permanently unavoidable.

Implicit risk can be lowered reducing the time between flips to something significantly less than 24 hours, or by going the other way and making it significantly more than 24 hours in null-sec (up to never changing clones in null-sec for the same thing as wormholes).

5. No cyno
Decreases implicit risk.

Sov holders access to an infrastructure module that closes cyno-generation possibilities in a null-sec system. Cynosural System Jammer. Devs should and will play around with the mechanics and costs (real and opportunity) to increase usage frequency somewhat.

6. No local
Increases implicit risk. That no local works in wormhole space validates the efficiency of the above compensating measures.

7. Ship limitations in system
Possibly a marginal problem for select players but does not represent an implicit threat of any consequence for day-to-day play.

8. The special snowflake argument
Often presented as unique characteristics present in wh players that allow them to thrive were others would perish.

Mechanisms described above give a more plausible exploration of implicit threat.

9. Removal of local
Would in isolation increase implicit threat. Its success explained by the above mechanisms.

Everything in my last post is already in the game. Were you suggesting they be removed so players with those advantages could toughen up some (or quit playing)?

No kidding, I pointed to that earlier. Having a hostile neighbor alliance is basically and "enduring implicit threat" but meh, v0v not worthy of a nerf. Now, AFK cloaking....that should be nerfed into the dirt....not that I'd benefit from it or anything. [/Jerghul mode]

Now Teckos, don't attack the poster. Argue his post.

There is meat to some of it, though I personally think he is on the wrong track.

How odd of you to say that. My position on mechanic details has shifted quite a bit since I first posted in this thread and I have rehashed things many a time in response to virtually any criticism.

Anyway...

Brokk
Thanks for the feedback. I know some of it is non-linear, so lets walk through it point by point.

"1. Wrong. Scrambling / neuting rats with omni DPS and tank have absolutely nothing to do with implicit risks nor with AFK Cloaking. If anything, getting scrammed *increases* your risk."

It increases explicit and real risk and decreases implicit risk. A ship (or ships) prepared to fight these kind of rats is not something you are going to sandbag on a whim. It also subjects attackers to a bit higher implicit risk. God knows if those rats might tackle you and leave you with in a pod, particularly if you try to tackle the ratter (but you are unlikely to get podded by ratter or rats at least).

The sum of both decreases implicit risk (or the psychological impact of cloaks and other things)

Cue constructive input.

Edit
Mike
The track I am on is based on Fozie's "afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wormhole space and there are good reasons for that" (paraphrased).

So I wanted to identify those reasons in a systematic way. I am in no way suggesting all wormhole mechanisms will be imported wholesale to nullsec from wormhole space, but I am pretty sure a number of them (in some variation or another) will be.

And you know what they say: Forewarned is forearmed. It is interesting and relevant almost by definition.

And what is the primary purpose of discussion?

I see it as a vehicle for the exchange and development of ideas.

I am sure you have a completely different understanding. That I will humour.

*likes Kaarouses post*