These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

CCP, is this what you really wanted?

Author
Veryunstable
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2015-03-19 02:21:35 UTC
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting.
1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods.
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.
4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc.
At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years.
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad
Jenshae Chiroptera
#2 - 2015-03-19 02:36:44 UTC
0. Good
1. Agree - T3 destroyers should never have been made, never mind so hilariously broken.
2. Agree - although there are was to tweak what we have now.
3. Temporary fighting then empty spaces.
4. Possibly. Also allow coalitions to take less space. Heard some vague mentions of team sites coming.

Don't say EVE is dying, people get excited about that.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Aphsala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-03-19 02:41:36 UTC
Change will never please everyone, personally im excited for the future
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc
Templis CALSF
#4 - 2015-03-19 03:00:34 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting.
1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods.
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.
4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc.
At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years.
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad


1. There are already ships that outrun missiles before T3's exist.
2. CCP listening to the Grr Goon crowd that wants SOV without the effort of actually taking and maintaining it.
3. Goonswarm Federation_1, Goonswarm Federation_2, Goonswarm Federation_3, Goonswarm_Federation_4 all under holding corps that is owned by The Mittani. Will you look at that then.
4. More like the Grr nullsec cartel Moon overlords will just make another OTEC treaty regarding the new mechanic and temp blue each other if someone swipes the new moon to take it for themselves.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#5 - 2015-03-19 03:44:50 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad



OP's reaction when he realizes that those 'few select friends' do represent the majority of players..


Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#6 - 2015-03-19 04:15:52 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition.

We do this, it's why we're a coalition.

Veryunstable wrote:
But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.

Yeah sometimes when people are "third partying" to help you they may run off to save their renters, or perhaps they were only going where there was action.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2015-03-19 04:58:52 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting.
1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods.
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.
4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc.
At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years.
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad



1. Bring tackle. Fast ships aren't new.
2. If a system is worth taking, it's worth having. If it's worth having, it's worth being present in. If there are pilots present, taking it will not be effortless.
3. The organizations in SOV null are above even the in-game Alliances. They are the coalitions. Being out-of-game, a 3000-pilot cap to alliances would accomplish nothing beyond setting a few more blues. The change you don't like in #2 will hopefully give the smaller guys a chance to take otherwise empty systems - systems which the big guys currently hold because they can, but aren't all that important so there won't be a constant effort to retain them. These smaller organizations are still subject to curb-stomping by the big guys, but might also get ignored them - and then generate content with all the other smaller organizations that will hopefully be moving in as well.
4. I do like the idea of dynamically allocated null resources, whether it be moons, anoms, ice, or whatever. If big organizations had to constantly move to maintain their income stream, we'd see a much more dynamic map. Like how PI resource quality move across the planetary map.
Azda Ja
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-03-19 05:26:31 UTC
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2015-03-19 05:43:33 UTC
This thread is exactly this this thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=412966&find=unread

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Avellean
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-03-19 05:46:16 UTC
This new direction eve is heading reminds me of SWG NGE.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-03-19 05:51:14 UTC
Too many abv for a game.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#12 - 2015-03-19 06:22:23 UTC
Most of the content mentioned I have yet to see.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#13 - 2015-03-19 06:25:07 UTC
I'm still pissed Capitals were introduced.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide

Iyokus Patrouette
Buccaneers of New Eden
Liquor Legion
#14 - 2015-03-19 06:47:48 UTC
You know, in my humble opinion. . . Post with your main bro!

---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2015-03-19 08:20:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
It's not true that taking SOV will be effortless. It scales properly. If a system is occupied and worth having, it will be defended by GSF.



Subscriptions might drop, but regardless of the reason for the key broadcasting ban, the result is congruent with another trend, which (I think) has been making EVE bigger. Along with adding new types of space like shattered wormholes and Thera (and literally making EVE have more room), Jump fatigue has made EVE bigger by limiting range of movement. Reducing the player count also, in effect, makes EVE roomier.

Still, why would they be willing to let the player count drop? One possible reason could be an emphasis on attracting new players through friend referrals, which of the sources of new players, is the most lasting (and successful).

In the past, multiboxing and alts have been a big part of EVE, but CCP may be tightening their belts and deciding it will be better in the long run to look more like a traditional video game with close to one account per player.

You could look at multiboxing as a sign of EVE's success (based on the average player's enthusiasm for the game), a failure and blemish on the purity of what a video game should be, or a non-issue that is nobody's business but the player's.

Fozzie mentioned very briefly that he would like to remove fleet warp, but he didn't share his logic for wanting to do so. Maybe it was to make another attempt at nerfing bombers, which is what CCP wanted to accomplish with the decloak change (and then changed their minds on, in favor of removing key broadcasting).

Or maybe he's an EVE purist and thinks the correct gameplay experience is one player, one account. No idea.

So anyway, a shrinking player count isn't necessarily bad. Maybe it just means there are fewer characters per player. It could even be that enough players are leaving EVE to cause a drop in numbers, but I think it's too soon to tell (or speculate about) what the fluctuations in numbers mean. Personally, I think EVE is just headed to a new equilibrium with flagrant multiboxing and blobbing removed from the equation.

EVE has a LOT of room for improvement in comprehensibility (mostly UI), but that has nothing to do with the points mentioned in the OP. I mention the UI because I think EVE can realize a large benefit from appearing more like a video game, and then attract new players a lot more consistently.

TL;DR: no, I don't think EVE is dying.
Vyl Vit
#16 - 2015-03-19 10:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
Veryunstable wrote:
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad
Ooooh! Did you just tell the emperor he has no clothes? (I was tired of seeing that thing danglin' in my face, too.)

Allow me to add some more of my irrelevancy-laden observations. Null Sec - SoV is a game. EVE is not. The two have to be viewed separately. There's a whole dialogue about this alone, but time and space don't allow so we'll make this leap and say Null Sec - SoV is the much begged for "end game" or "meta game" if you will (though the game itself is actually older than that term.) Whatever game it's called it's a game, and not a sandbox. As such it has to be developed or invented as one.

The tendency is to take an existing condition and alter or contort it to meet perceived short-comings or stout demands. We took the "old" SoV and turned it into "this" SoV. Now we're taking this one and bending it into the "new" one. Imagine chess doing this:

"The queen is OP."
"Okay, let's nerf her. How?"
"Let's tie her to a pawn."
"Okay, which pawn?"
"How about her knight's pawn?"
"That makes sense. Let's do it."
"What about the string laying on the board?"
"Hmmm....let's say nobody can cross it."
"Nobody can cross it?"
"Cross it, how?"
"Front or back."
"Just front."
"Okay, just front."
"Nobody?"
"Well, we could have a jump specialist."
"What piece would that be?"
"Let's make it a bishop. Bishops live on loopholes anyway."
"Which bishop?"
"Oh, let's make it the black bishop for white, and the white bishop for black!"

Enough of this and you're playing Mess, not Chess. It's trying to be cute, but we are teetering on the edge of making a monstrosity if this situation isn't viewed properly from the outset. And, you can see the two camps in our case already in place.

A.) I've got this Null - SoV down to an artform and now you're going to change it on me?

B.) This Null - SoV results in unwanted and unwarranted conditions, it needs to be changed.

What is difficult to do is look at Null - SoV as a stand-alone entity and devise a method unattached from any of the previous methods. No matter what you do otherwise, you'll always have the remnants of the old method interlaced with the armature of the new one. Woefully, CCP seems to grasp this and has tried to weave a new mechanic from the midst of the old. This method makes it impossible to create a totally new method, leaving what you have to the vagaries of comparing it to the old, as though the new method is just an alteration of the old - not a new method at all.

Null - SoV is a game. It has to be designed like a cogent, stand-alone system such as are Chess, Backgammon, even Checkers. I can't help but feel we're trying to turn Backgammon into Chess. And, no matter how good your intentions, or how much effort and imagination you put into it, you're going to wind up with Mess - just as many are foretelling with this Null - SoV.

Maybe CCP got it right. Maybe when it's applied, over time, the genius of the new way will reveal itself and all the naysayers silenced. I tend to think that'd take a combination of luck and genius that isn't often seen in human history, and the idea this combination just happened to pull itself together in Reykjavik? Well. Let's say you aren't getting Vegas odds on that one.

Just remember, CCP's biggest problem with dealing with this situation is us. We're the ones using our vision to make our demands, expectations and sharp criticisms they have to either anticipate or work around. It could well be some brilliant ideas found their ways to the cutting room floor all because of this: "They'd never go for it."

Believe it or not. I see the best way to create a Null - SoV Game is to turn over the Etcha-Sketch and shake. Whatever was is no more, including whatever holdings people think they hold (hear a huge CRY from a waffle nearby?) Rework it. Reinvent it, totally separate from anything done before. THEN, set us loose on it like the homesteaders were set loose on the wild west.

Of course, the ones "losing" what they "have now" would be apoplectic. So, if anyone's tied anyone's hands in this,
we have.

Just a thought...or two.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#17 - 2015-03-19 10:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Janeway84
The majority of players doesn't know whats good for the game , thats why there are game designers P
Im sad they nerfing carriers abilities before I even get to try assigning fighters and swatting some poor cruiser.
With isboxing players running fleets of alts that also drew up the price of Plex to ridicilous levels im happy that CCP disallows "input broadcasting".
To split up the 3-4 major coalitions in the game the only thing CCP can do is change mechanics around or reset the Sov of all of nullsec wich I would support Big smile
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#18 - 2015-03-19 10:20:00 UTC
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.

Have a nice day.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc
Templis CALSF
#19 - 2015-03-19 11:16:23 UTC
Janeway84 wrote:
The majority of players doesn't know whats good for the game , thats why there are game designers P
Im sad they nerfing carriers abilities before I even get to try assigning fighters and swatting some poor cruiser.
With isboxing players running fleets of alts that also drew up the price of Plex to ridicilous levels im happy that CCP disallows "input broadcasting".
To split up the 3-4 major coalitions in the game the only thing CCP can do is change mechanics around or reset the Sov of all of nullsec wich I would support Big smile


You know resetting null will just have all the old powers squat on their old territories again right with the "small guys" blobbed again.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#20 - 2015-03-19 11:18:34 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.

Have a nice day.


I like your hair.

OP has no hair at all!
123Next page