These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#681 - 2015-05-16 12:04:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:
The whole point of a business is to make money[.]


Let's just nip this in the bud: No, the point of a business is to have a business. Most business owners are content with making a living, preferably but not necessarily a good one, and preferably but not necessarily doing something they love. Profit is necessary, but it's not always the whole point

CCP has never been about blindly chasing profit, "Greed is Good?" notwithstanding. Yes, its executives do quite well for themselves. But they wanted a very specific kind of game, and they've figured out--or maybe, stumbled into--how to make that work well enough to keep the doors open for a decade solid. There certainly are ideas they could chase that might greatly increase the size of EVE, at least for a while, just as the Trammel server greatly increased the userbase of Ultima Online. But if they implement those ideas then EVE isn't EVE anymore, the great experiment is over, and CCP is just another MMO developer on a remote, frozen rock. That matters more to them than money.



Every time someone cranks out that tired old "hey CCP, you will make SOOO much money if you only chose to cater to my personal need" meme, I'm going to link the above quoted post for them, because this is the perfect answer.


It is indeed perfect for a business plan like EVE. Massive change of target audience is risky especially for a product established for a long time.


You'd think Star Wars Galaxies would have been a sufficient abject lesson in that truth, but apparently not.

"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.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#682 - 2015-05-16 18:13:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
abject lesson


Intentional pun or embarrassing typo?

YOU DECIDE!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#683 - 2015-05-16 18:21:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
abject lesson


Intentional pun or embarrassing typo?

YOU DECIDE!


It colloquially means "miserable, terrible, painful or unpleasant". Given what happened to SWG, I'd say it applies.

"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.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#684 - 2015-05-16 19:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
It is indeed perfect for a business plan like EVE. Massive change of target audience is risky especially for a product established for a long time.


You'd think Star Wars Galaxies would have been a sufficient abject lesson in that truth, but apparently not.


The little issue here is that CCP is targetting development effort at a minority of players while they lave the majority out of focus, and simultaneously competition from other games is on the rise.

Can EVE live without PvErs? The answer is no hell no. But then why CCP ignores them?

CCP is putting the cart before the horse. They say "PvP is fine, PvPrs stay longer, so focus on PvP" when it's "PvE is abysmal, PvErs leave in hordes, so we should improve PvE".

Just adding new Level 4 missions would give a instant boost to EVE population as misssion runenrs resubbed to try them, for a small price tag and with ZERO negative impact on the oh-so-precious PvP.

Instead of that, CCP chooses to develop convoluted plans to lure PvErs into PvP... why? If those 62% wanted to PvP, they would be doing it already!!

If they want to farm NPCs... give them new ways to farm them!

If EVE is about generating player content... get off your fat ass and bloody implement means so PvE generates player content!

EVE needs not to CHANGE. It needs to IMPROVE.

An there is a lot of room for improvement in PvE... way more than in old tired PvP!

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#685 - 2015-05-16 19:30:48 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

The little issue here is that CCP is targetting development effort at a minority of players while they lave the majority out of focus, and simultaneously competition from other games is on the rise.


You've spouted this lie before, and got shot down then too.

You are claiming a theoretical(and imaginary) majority to try and give credence to your screeching to have your niche catered to at the expense of everyone else in the game. It's as selfish as it gets, which is why you try and borrow the weight of imaginary people when you do it.

You can knock it off now.


Quote:

Just adding new Level 4 missions would give a instant boost to EVE population as misssion runenrs resubbed to try them, for a small price tag and with ZERO negative impact on the oh-so-precious PvP.


And like all PvE "content", it would be gamed within hours of being released on SiSi, and made totally irrelevant to everyone.

PvE is literally a 100% waste of dev time, until they decide to actually make it hard, instead of a trivial mechanic to inject assets into the game.

"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.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#686 - 2015-05-16 20:01:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

The little issue here is that CCP is targetting development effort at a minority of players while they lave the majority out of focus, and simultaneously competition from other games is on the rise.


You've spouted this lie before, and got shot down then too.

You are claiming a theoretical(and imaginary) majority to try and give credence to your screeching to have your niche catered to at the expense of everyone else in the game. It's as selfish as it gets, which is why you try and borrow the weight of imaginary people when you do it.

You can knock it off now.


CCP haves some news for you.

Professionals: 30%
Entrepreneurs: 25%
Agressors: 8%
Social: 12%
Traditional: 25%

People who do little to no PvP: 25% Entrepreneurs + 25% Traditional + 12% Social = 62%

Yes, a "theoretical and imaginary" majority of just 62% of the actual players (not ACCOUNTS, not CHARACTERS, but PEOPLE). Roll

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#687 - 2015-05-16 20:13:18 UTC
CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.

"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.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#688 - 2015-05-16 20:25:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.


Yes, of course, letting go 90% of all new customers because you can't be arsed to move a finger and improve the content they enjoy is so briliant... Roll

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#689 - 2015-05-16 20:28:01 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP haves some news for you.

Professionals: 30%
Entrepreneurs: 25%
Agressors: 8%
Social: 12%
Traditional: 25%

People who do little to no PvP: 25% Entrepreneurs + 25% Traditional + 12% Social = 62%

Yes, a "theoretical and imaginary" majority of just 62% of the actual players (not ACCOUNTS, not CHARACTERS, but PEOPLE). Roll

even by that graph:

- socials: doing as much pvp as they are industry and pve
- traditionals: doing slightly more industry and pve compared to pvp, but not by a large margin
- entrepreneurs: doing about as much pvp as they are pve (missions and mining)

I don't think it's really reasonable to break players up into regular pvp v not regular pvp and declaring pvp players as a minority.

I can't find the statement at the moment but will go look for it, but CCP have said that approximately 50% of players are regularly involved in pvp, so the issue of minority/majority isn't as black and white as a simple reading of that graph indicates. It's more complicated than a 2 group classification.

Even if you try to classify players into 2 groups, there have been a lot of claims of shrinking numbers in the game over the last couple of years. How many of those have been pvp oriented players leaving for lack of focus on pvp?

We don't know. If you are in the Eve is dying camp, then it could just as easily be because of a lack of focus on pvp development as much as pve development.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#690 - 2015-05-16 20:30:05 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.


Yes, of course, letting go 90% of all new customers because you can't be arsed to move a finger and improve the content they enjoy is so briliant... Roll


Clearly they aren't enjoying it, if doing it makes them quit so much more.

"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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#691 - 2015-05-16 20:34:09 UTC
But hey, in your twisted world, I bet you think that means that CCP needs to waste more time on the thing that doesn't retain players, instead of put more time on the thing that does.

Because apparently we should waste loads of dev time not on ship balancing, structures, or other such things that the game direly needs...

We should be wasting it refreshing this game's PvE "content" every couple months or so, once you inevitably get tired of the banality of shooting red crosses.

Roll

Listening to people like you is exactly what killed Ultima Online, and Star Wars Galaxies.

"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.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#692 - 2015-05-16 20:47:45 UTC
In a way, Instantnunchucks is correct: if CCP did manage to add in genuinely fun-to-do PvP, then EVE almost certainly would see a large surge in both subs and PCU. And hey, EVE is 12 years old: PvE that's not basically a "To do: PvE that's not a god damb punishment" post-it note would be pretty nice. In fact it would be great.

The 2 main problems with this approach are

1) This is going to take a huge amount of resources to do. CCP have literally only just made the tools that allow them to generate new PvE rooms rather than literally hand-code each one. I am not making this up: that's how weakly they've focused on PvE. "Fun" PvE is going to require pretty much a ground-up rewrite of the whole code block. Doing an end run around this was one of the potential benefits of Incarna, btw,

2) There is no indication whatsoever that, even if they devoted large resources to the project, CCP are capable of producing "Fun" PvE. They just... they just dont think that way. CCP do 'awesome' just fine. They just don't do 'fun'.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#693 - 2015-05-16 21:06:32 UTC
That might just be the biggest "If" in the history of the game.

Given that this is not a flight sim, and all. Heck, even Elite Dangerous can't really manage to make NPCs any serious threat without just amping up their tank and damage stats.

"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.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#694 - 2015-05-16 22:07:21 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Can EVE live without PvErs? The answer is no hell no. But then why CCP ignores them?



They haven't ignored "us". if anything, CCP spent a bit too much time on PVE. You do not speak for "US".

When I started there were missions, anomalies, belt rates, unrated complexes and DED complexes. They added incursions and wormholes, and faction warfare pve. They've added missions, worked on anomalies, totally changed the way exploration and scanning work, gave use PVE centric ships (Marauders) and over the years added sooo many mods that help in PVE (like the MJD). Even the deployable have changed PVE.

You ignore all of this because you have unrealistic expectations. I'm a PVE player and I'm perfectly happy with how things go (I know that idea burns you, they idea that the people you want to think you are 'fighting for" don't need your help). The problem isn't CCP focusing on pvp, it's that CCP doesn't give you what you want.

Speak for yourself sometime.


Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#695 - 2015-05-16 22:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Malcanis wrote:
In a way, Instantnunchucks is correct: if CCP did manage to add in genuinely fun-to-do PvP, then EVE almost certainly would see a large surge in both subs and PCU. And hey, EVE is 12 years old: PvE that's not basically a "To do: PvE that's not a god damb punishment" post-it note would be pretty nice. In fact it would be great.

The 2 main problems with this approach are

1) This is going to take a huge amount of resources to do. CCP have literally only just made the tools that allow them to generate new PvE rooms rather than literally hand-code each one. I am not making this up: that's how weakly they've focused on PvE. "Fun" PvE is going to require pretty much a ground-up rewrite of the whole code block. Doing an end run around this was one of the potential benefits of Incarna, btw,

2) There is no indication whatsoever that, even if they devoted large resources to the project, CCP are capable of producing "Fun" PvE. They just... they just dont think that way. CCP do 'awesome' just fine. They just don't do 'fun'.


Oh, come on.

First: define "fun". Obviously the guy quoting you doesn't knows why mission runners do run missions. I've run in excess of 2,400 missions (and can prove it! Lol ), and so I have a couple of clues on why I keep doing it. Same goes for mining, too.

So, in one hand, PvE needs "more of the same". That would be a good thing; I've been running missions since 2009 and guess what? I *never* wrote the guide for one. There was no need to, the guides already had been written before i joined the game. I know that this was because CCP didn't had the tools and building new misions was horribly time consuming and painstakingly difficult.

But two years after CCP began developing mission making tools, what have we got? Burner missions. Not a single poor lil' Level 4. Not even a "Damsel's revenge" where your goal is to keep the Damsel (and her cruiser) alive by blasting waves of rats as she takes dow the Pleasure complex... and then Kruul has set MORE explosives so the cruiser is going to pop unless it haves 90% of its original tank when the complex blows. Doh! A mission that can be failed! And without using a single new resource, just old mission tools and AI.

But there's more. CCP have proved to be capable of coming up with complex systems for PvP *cough* FozzieSov *cough* which, even if they're more or less dead on arrival, certainly ARE complex and require LOTS of new resources. Let alone the PvP structures and their magical you-lost-your-Citadel-but-not-your-stuff-seriously bull.

CCP only needs to do for PvE what they've been doing for PvP. Make PvE something generated by players, consumed by players, in order to affect other players. That IS unconsensual PvP, too. It only takes to take seriously that some people will not shot oher people... not in EVE at least, and maybe not in person. But that doesn't means that, provided a chance, those people would gleefully mess with other people, specially those coming after them with their PvP ships.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#696 - 2015-05-16 22:40:16 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

First: define "fun".


Something done for enjoyment, rather than any particular benefit.

Quote:

Obviously the guy quoting you doesn't knows why mission runners do run missions.


They do it to make money, for whatever reason. Notably, not enjoyment. I've met more than a few nascent mission runners who do it because the NPE led them in that direction, so they think they "have" to run missions.

And we all know that such players, unless interacted with in a meaningful way, eventually quit the game entirely. An argument could easily be made that highsec PvE is actively hurting the game, by damaging potential retention.

"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.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#697 - 2015-05-16 23:28:12 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
In a way, Instantnunchucks is correct: if CCP did manage to add in genuinely fun-to-do PvP, then EVE almost certainly would see a large surge in both subs and PCU. And hey, EVE is 12 years old: PvE that's not basically a "To do: PvE that's not a god damb punishment" post-it note would be pretty nice. In fact it would be great.

The 2 main problems with this approach are

1) This is going to take a huge amount of resources to do. CCP have literally only just made the tools that allow them to generate new PvE rooms rather than literally hand-code each one. I am not making this up: that's how weakly they've focused on PvE. "Fun" PvE is going to require pretty much a ground-up rewrite of the whole code block. Doing an end run around this was one of the potential benefits of Incarna, btw,

2) There is no indication whatsoever that, even if they devoted large resources to the project, CCP are capable of producing "Fun" PvE. They just... they just dont think that way. CCP do 'awesome' just fine. They just don't do 'fun'.


Oh, come on.

First: define "fun". Obviously the guy quoting you doesn't knows why mission runners do run missions. I've run in excess of 2,400 missions (and can prove it! Lol ), and so I have a couple of clues on why I keep doing it. Same goes for mining, too.

So, in one hand, PvE needs "more of the same". That would be a good thing; I've been running missions since 2009 and guess what? I *never* wrote the guide for one. There was no need to, the guides already had been written before i joined the game. I know that this was because CCP didn't had the tools and building new misions was horribly time consuming and painstakingly difficult.

But two years after CCP began developing mission making tools, what have we got? Burner missions. Not a single poor lil' Level 4. Not even a "Damsel's revenge" where your goal is to keep the Damsel (and her cruiser) alive by blasting waves of rats as she takes dow the Pleasure complex... and then Kruul has set MORE explosives so the cruiser is going to pop unless it haves 90% of its original tank when the complex blows. Doh! A mission that can be failed! And without using a single new resource, just old mission tools and AI.

But there's more. CCP have proved to be capable of coming up with complex systems for PvP *cough* FozzieSov *cough* which, even if they're more or less dead on arrival, certainly ARE complex and require LOTS of new resources. Let alone the PvP structures and their magical you-lost-your-Citadel-but-not-your stuff-seriously bull.

CCP only needs to do for PvE what they've been doing for PvP. Make PvE something generated by players, consumed by players, in order to affect other players. That IS unconsensual PvP, too. It only takes to take seriously that some people will not shot oher people... not in EVE at least, and maybe not in person. But that doesn't means that, provided a chance, those people would gleefully mess with other people, specially those coming after them with their PvP ships.


For some reason you seem to think that agent missions are anything to do with "fun PvE". I am at a loss to think why. Missions are at best mining with a fancy label and some flavour text, and introducing them was a horrible mistake for EVE at every level.

CCP's modern PvE direction can be clearly seen with, uh, the PvE they've introduced since; Sleepers, Incursions, Burners, Drifters.

PS: it's also pretty cute that you think "2400" missions is a lot.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marsha Mallow
#698 - 2015-05-16 23:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
First: define "fun".


Something done for enjoyment, rather than any particular benefit.

An AI can't generate the 'fun' roleplaying fetishists demand.

You're mixing up several different playstyles and preferences here without any particular effect btw isachunk.

Solo players can do so without being forced to play in larger groups. Actually a lot of people in mid to large groups are soloers who don't really interract all that much with anyone. The myth that joining a corp is a second job is a myth for anyone but leadership.

You can do trade, indy, research, invention, manufacturing, hauling, mining, exploration as well as regular missions/plexing. You choose not to because, evidently you expect to undock 3 jumps from your nearest trade hub and have NPC generated content delivered. Which is fair enough in some ways provided it doesn't hurt the economy. But you don't insta undock into a dungeon or instance. You undock with us, and we are going to find a way to play with you, because we live here too.

PVE content has been added within the game design philosophy. Wormholes, Incursions, Burners, Drifters. There was already PVE content outside of highsec (level 5s, plexing etc) and rescuing the Damsel for the 2400th time - but you chose not to take it.

Read this and consider why those comments were made.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#699 - 2015-05-16 23:29:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.

I bet CCP told you that.
Really, that is such a stupid comment to make.

1 in 100 new players (less than 1 month) is ok with losing ships in pvp while he can't reasonably defend himself, has no idea how the game works, no game currency to replace lost ships, etc.
To improve new player retention, CCP need to start offering a LOT more to new players.
If it is considered to be at acceptable levels, player numbers should remain fairly stable. 1 joins 1 leaves.

Most games look at new players as a way to increase player numbers, CCP seem to use them as a means of keeping numbers stable.


Quote:
And we all know that such players, unless interacted with in a meaningful way, eventually quit the game entirely. An argument could easily be made that highsec PvE is actively hurting the game, by damaging potential retention.
Damn you Kaarous, you make a nonsense comment then go and say something really valid.
Stop confusing me!!

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#700 - 2015-05-16 23:33:34 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP has some news for you.

The best player retention amongst any new players, is of those players who experienced PvP combat in some way. The way forward is clear, and it's not your way.

I bet CCP told you that.
Really, that is such a stupid comment to make.

1 in 100 new players (less than 1 month) is ok with losing ships in pvp while he can't reasonably defend himself, has no idea how the game works, no game currency to replace lost ships, etc.
To improve new player retention, CCP need to start offering a LOT more to new players.
If it is considered to be at acceptable levels, player numbers should remain fairly stable. 1 joins 1 leaves.

Most games look at new players as a way to increase player numbers, CCP seem to use them as a means of keeping numbers stable.



CCP have access to actual data to back up their assertions in this matter. What do you have?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016